Month: July 2017


The first part of the track is steep, and one that my fresh horses at dawn can hardly climb. In mid-heaven it is highest, where to look down on earth and sea often alarms even me, and makes my heart tremble with awesome fear. The last part of the track is downwards and needs sure control. Then even Tethys herself, who receives me in her submissive waves, is accustomed to fear that I might dive headlong…You will not easily rule those proud horses, breathing out through mouth and nostrils the fires burning in their chests. They scarcely tolerate my control when their fierce spirits are hot, and their necks resist the reins. Beware my boy, that I am not the source of a gift fatal to you, while something can still be done to set right your request! –Ovid, Metamorphoses

The above excerpt is from Ovid’s wonderful classic about Greek mythology, perhaps one of my favorite sources for metaphors and parables of character outside the Scripture. One of the things I have noted the more trips around the sun I make is the inability of the English language to truly capture and quantify the range of emotions humans exhibit. Ovid tells the story of Phaethon, the son of Helios (the sun god) which represents one of the more well known parables about hubris. Contrary to the story of Icharus however, Phaethon was motivated by more than just a desire to excel or an overestimation of his own abilities. Insecure about his own position as a demigod and challenged by his friends, he sought assurances from his father Helios. Helios made the fatal error of granting Phaethon whatever wish he wanted, and one can imagine a Marlon Brando figure drinking campari or Disaronno grudgingly granting his son’s request. Without the ability and skill to do so, Phaethon took Helios’ chariot (the sun) and proceeded to just about kill life on earth by losing control of it. Zeus steps in to handle the disaster and strikes Phaethon with a lightning bold, killing him and bringing the whole goat rope to an end.

painting-phaethonThe story is interesting because despite the focus on Phaethon by Ovid, there are several more layers to the story that echo in life. The most obvious of lessons is intersection of hubris, incompetence and colossal insecurity to result in disaster. The more subtle lesson however is that of the enabler, Helios. Helios knew exactly how difficult it is to do his job, describing in agonizing detail to his son how perilous it is. Yet at the end of this he relents and proceeds to allow this disaster to run its course. The alleged results of this ill-fated experiment resulted in the Sahara desert and drying various rivers up. One can imagine the death toll from such catastrophic ‘global warming.’ The resolution of the matter happens when Zeus steps in and takes corrective action, which today would be seen as extreme, but the Greeks saw as fitting punishment for one who aspires to be that which he is not. We all know Phaethons, but disaster strikes when people become willing accomplices to idiocy and enablers like Helios.

The success of a community, organization and even a family unit is not the elimination of those too incompetent, arrogant or ignorant to even know they posses such character traits. Rather, it is those who are not those things to recognize the consequences of indulging such an individual. Whether because of senility, magnanimity or apathy, choosing to ignore such a thing, let alone promote it, is a dereliction of duty. I reserve the highest scorn not for those too stupid to know better, but those who do and passively allow such a person to wreak havoc. The immediate gratification of not being the ‘bad guy’ in a given situation ignores the long-term affects an incompetent egomaniac can have on your friends, allies, employees and family. In my professional life the Helios’ are what keep me up at night, those competent people who suffer a catastrophic lapse in judgment, often times leading to their own firing in addition to whatever Phaethon-esque character they allowed to drive the project. In my world, good intentions and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee. You are judged  by your results and the part you played in getting those results.

DQTh8PXsOvid, or the unknown Greek who came up with the original tale, brilliantly described human nature’s tendency to mimic Newton’s 1st law of motion. Helios was nowhere to be found while Phaethon was busy torching the planet, and intervention arrived only after a crisis had happened and half a continent was on fire. Zeus steps in and deals out harsh punishment to the offender, resulting in Phaethon perhaps being the first human to ever reach terminal velocity. In our weak and effeminate society, often the Zeus of the situation instantly becomes the ‘bad guy,’ the ‘____-ist’ or ‘____-phobe’ because the rubric we use to judge actions is largely based on emotion. Even within the liberty movement has this attitude pervaded the discussion, far too many are content to sit back and criticize while declining to do much else except throw stones at their betters.

Ultimately, the real moral of Ovid’s story is not one of hubris by a fool. It is the enabling of fools by those who know better, resulting in disaster. Oft times resulting in harsh measures having to be meted out to correct the situation. The Phaethon’s of the world are not going to be reasoned out of their ignorance and pride. Perhaps if they survive a sufficiently jarring encounter with reality, but often not even then. What will derail the liberty community, and whatever other communities are important in your life, is either being or tolerating those who enable such bad actors and allow them to claw their way to the levers of power. Whatever the emotional satisfaction, you will regret it. Helios knew the perils, knew the sheer ineptitude and inadequacy of his son and ignored the logical result of such a decision. The Phaethons, Icarus’, Custers and Bernies don’t scare me, it is the myriad of enablers behind such people. The Phaethons will read this and not understand a word, it is simply who they are. I’m speaking to the Helios’ of the liberty movement that suffer fools far too willingly. A Zeus will come, and it’s going to hurt.




Who says organization, says oligarchy 


 The democratic currents of history resemble successive waves. They break ever on the same shoal…When democracies have gained a certain stage of development, they undergo a gradual transformation, adopting the aristocratic spirit, and in many cases also the aristocratic forms, against which at the outset they struggled so fiercely. Now new accusers arise to denounce the traitors; after an era of glorious combats and of inglorious power, they end by fusing with the old dominant class; whereupon once more they are in their turn attacked by fresh opponents who appeal to the name of democracy. It is probable that this cruel game will continue without end. – Robert Michels

The right for decades has been content to chase the idea of democracy, never questioning that sacred premise of universal suffrage. The original concept restricted suffrage to property owners, given the fact that the income tax had not been enacted and property taxes were the primary source of funding for the government. The voter base has expanded proportionally with the tax base, exceeding it now to the point where the net producers are only a fraction of eligible voters. The mentally handicapped, foreign nationals and deceased all enjoy suffrage in our country. Despite increasing it to the point of insanity, has universal suffrage really changed the nature of power in our country? The two parties still maintain a stranglehold on the government, both wield their respective voting blocs as clumsy weapons against the other and if results are any indication, neither have any interest in anything other than maintaining the status quo and defrauding the taxpayer. The historically literate will note the composition of the signers of the Constitution and the charge that we exchanged monarchy for an oligarchy has merit. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Henry were all landed gentry and highly educated for the day, even if not of British aristocracy. Such men became central figures in the revolution and later the US government, forming the backbone of the new government and themselves picked those of similar social rank, such as William Marbury.

The concept of oligarchies is not a new one, class structure has existed throughout mankind’s recorded history. The rubric of the structure may be different, but the high, middle and lower classes have always been. Aristocracy places emphasis on birth, while oligarchy emphasizes wealth, political capital and other soft power. Plato defined oligarchies in his Republic as follows:

The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is the ruin of timocracy; they invent illegal modes of expenditure; for what do they or their wives care about the law? 

Yes, indeed.

And then one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money.

Likely enough.

And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls.


And in proportion as riches and rich men are honoured in the State, virtue and the virtuous are dishonoured.




And what is honoured is cultivated, and that which has no honour is neglected.

Republic Book VIII pp.  408-409


wave-splashing-on-the-rocks-wallpaper-1.jpgPlato had a distinctly low view of oligarchy, from his atavistic perspective he held wealth and the pursuit of it second to the service of the state and the higher ideals of virtue. The German sociologist Robert Michels expanded this view of oligarchy in his book Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Rather than positing oligarchy devolves into democracy, Michels observed that any organization which is large scale in nature will in fact become an oligarchy, if not in name, certainly in function. His observation quickly became known as the iron law of oligarchy, to which exist few exceptions. Michels lists several reasons for this, namely ability, efficiency and the nature of man. The most staunch egalitarians and ancaps must acknowledge the inherent inequality of men, whether intellectually, physically or emotionally. Men may be of equal worth to God, but they are certainly not to their respective societies or fellow man. We are all of different economic, emotional and social worth to different people and to our respective societies, as wages and relative influence provide concrete proof of. This natural inequality is borne out in the private sector and within organizations, despite the best efforts of the socialists to forcibly equalize humanity to the lowest common denominator. Any organization will have the core individuals it relies upon to accomplish its purpose. Those core members wield far more influence than their ‘peers’ in a given situation and that power, whether official or not, is generally recognized. When I need to source something from a supplier at work, there are people I call to get answers and people I call to get results. The difference in ability naturally pushes the more competent to the top by virtue of results, whether that be tangible or simply their ability to propagandize their efforts successfully.

Much has been written in the business world about streamlining the decision-making process and avoiding the loss of money that occurs when timely decisions cannot be made. Any successful long-term venture, whether it be in the business or political world relies on the ability of the organization to respond to events promptly. One of Michels better prongs of analysis was on this very fact. “Democracy is utterly incompatible with strategic promptness, and the forces of democracy do not lend themselves to the rapid opening of a campaign. This is why political parties, even when democratic, exhibit so much hostility to the referendum and to all other measures for the safeguard of real democracy; and this is why in their constitution these parties exhibit, if not unconditional caesarism, at least extremely strong centralizing and oligarchical tendencies.” Successful revolutions, protests, political parties and businesses all share the ability to adapt and react to changing circumstances before it’s too late. Particularly with smaller and newer ventures, the ability to be agile in the marketplace of ideas is what separates success and failure. It simply cannot occur in any type of real democratic process, so ultimately what is arrived at is the binary option of streamline or die. Those who choose the former face that Faustian bargain of success of the organization, yet death of the  democratic ideals they supposedly hold. The revolutionary syndicalist Humphrey Lagardelle admits to this anachronism in his work The Confederation of Labour and Socialism, “And for the use of the proletariat they have reproduced the capitalist tools of domination; they have built a workers’ government as harsh as the bourgeois government, a workers’ bureaucracy as clumsy as the bourgeois bureaucracy, a central power which tells the workers what they can and what they cannot do, which shatters all independence and initiative in the union members, and which sometimes must inspire in its victims a regret for capitalistic modes of authority.” Despite approaching the topic from a socialist revolutionary point of view, Lagardelle is intellectually honest enough to admit the platitudes of marxism are just that, platitudes. Michels classified the situation much the same way, “An extensive organization is per se a heavy piece of mechanism, and one difficult to put in operation…But the problems of the hour need a speedy decision, and this is why democracy can no longer function in its primitive and genuine form, unless the policy pursued is to be temporizing, involving the loss of the most favorable opportunities for action. Under such guidance, the party becomes incapable of acting in alliance with others, and loses its political elasticity. A fighting party needs a hierarchical structure. In the absence of such a structure, the party will be comparable to a savage and shapeless Negro army, which is unable to withstand a single well-disciplined and well-drilled battalion of European soldiers.

The last reason Michels gives for this phenomenon is the nature of men themselves. A vast majority feel an innate need to be led. Were we to step back and actually look at what every representative government in practice is, we will arrive to much the same conclusion as he did. “Even if we make the theoretical admission that in abstracto parliamentary government does indeed embody government by the masses, in practical life it is nothing but a continuous fraud on the part of the dominant class. Under representative government the difference between democracy and monarchy, which are both rooted in the representative system, is altogether insignificant — a difference not in substance but in form. The sovereign people elects, in place of a king, a number of kinglets. Not possessing sufficient freedom and independence to direct the life of the state, it tamely allows itself to be despoiled of its fundamental right. The one right which the people reserves is the “ridiculous privilege” of choosing from time to time a new set of masters.” You may protest, but look at the participation in the primaries for the respective political parties or better yet the local functions of government. Part of it lies with the fact that the majority of the public is ignorant both of economic, social and historical issues affecting them. The utter incompetence of the average person to soberly contemplate the affairs of state is perhaps an insurmountable obstacle to true democracy, whether one agrees with the ideal or not. With the breakdown of national and cultural homogeneity another layer has been added on to mere ignorance. The populace no longer has a common goal, a common heritage or common moral framework. What incentive exists for investment in an incomprehensible system that governs a populace that you share no bond with? Dumas famously stated that “Majorities are only the evidence of that which is.” The electoral privilege is one without a mandate. As such it relies on the citizenry or members of the organization to self-incentivize and exercise that right. It would appear that in every such case there exists sufficient apathy to prevent any real involvement with ‘that most sacred right’ until conditions get so poor a state of war exists between the organization and its general membership.

carol-martel1.jpgThe ideas presented in Michel’s book have enormous implications. The liberty movement acknowledges that men are inherently unequal, yet we struggle accepting and implementing the concept. Leadership and authority are as popular as typhus, yet there still seems to be a question as to the disparity of results between the alt-right and the liberty movement. We generate our own groupthink and mantras (BFYTW, Cloud/Dirt People ect.) and have the same tepid participation in the direction of the movement. I have no reason to suspect that any form of government we could implement would differ significantly in its machinations with the exception of some boilerplate about freedom and liberty with a pro forma ‘Constitution’ as toothless to the nature of man as our current one is. We bifurcate the spectrum of society in many different ways to describe exactly what Michels observed. Predator and prey, players and spectators, high and low class, and the list goes on. One could hypothesize that the construct of the government matters less than the character of the men inhabiting it. A noble monarch and aristocracy is preferable to a self-serving president and greedy Congress. A democracy made up of men of the highest character is preferable to a weak-willed monarch and corrupt aristocracy. Michels reached the same grudging conclusion, yet ends a spectacular tour de force with a half-hearted screed against aristocracy that would make Marx proud.

An oligarchy already exists within this movement, within your community, within your family and within your workplace. If you haven’t noticed, then you’re probably not in it friendo. Rather than bemoan the fact that human nature creates and seeks hierarchy, seek to create a culture of excellence. The choice of whether you are a part of the oligarchy in your respective organization or not is up to you. Whether your children are is tangentially up to you. Call it the oligarchy or the movers and shakers if it makes you feel better, but make the choice every morning and live with the consequences. Go read Michels and Lagardelle, let them challenge your thinking and provide a different perspective. Disagree if you’d like, Michels certainly generated significant blowback with his assertion, though the best his detractors could come up with was a few exceptions that could fit on one hand. Those interested in further study should pursue elite theory and read more of Hobbes and Aristotle. Don’t be a pseudo-intellectual sitting in an echo chamber of endless kitschy acronyms. Think for yourself and use a rational argument. Who am I kidding, let the circular firing squad close ranks and extinguish aberrant opinions or challenges to your assumptions. A conservative candidate who should present himself to his electors by declaring to them that he did not regard them as capable of playing an active part in influencing the destinies of the country, and should tell them that for this reason they ought to be deprived of the suffrage, would be a man of incomparable sincerity, but politically insane.  Who says organization, says oligarchy. 


-Jesse James

The Resistance


We keep hearing [I’m part of] “The Resistance” spewing out of various public figures. These spews should be addressed.

Terms Used in Unconventional Warfare (UW)

[Current] Joint doctrine defines UW as activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, and guerrilla (sic) force in a denied area. (JP 3-05)

More recently, published Public Law defines UW as “activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, or guerrilla (sic) force in a denied area.” [Public Law 114-92 Sec. 1097, S.1356 — 114th Congress (2015-2016), National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016]

zrcqe0v6jdmdalcm9liaResistance Movement: An organized effort by some portion of the civil population of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. (JP 3-05)

Insurgency: The organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region. Insurgency can also refer to the group itself. (JP 3-24) (Emphasis ours.)

Now to the heart of the thing:

Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384):

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Now we see current and former politicians and the deep state (collectively, the Underground), the media (Auxiliary), and the various violent movements (BLM, Antifa, etc., loosely, Guerillas) engaged in seditious conspiracy. Ever wonder how all those spontaneous uprisings occurred in many places simultaneously?

All resistance movements are externally sponsored and supplied. To whom does this “resistance” answer?

Next is an appeal to the UN or World Court or somesuch (EU?) for “legitimacy.” We keep hearing how the current administration is illegitimate, so the “resistance” needs “legitimacy.” Things to watch for:

• Maintain Alignment of Resistance Campaign Activities with     Resistance Narratives and Legitimacy
• Synchronize Resistance Operations and Activities Across Boundaries
• Expand Resistance Controlled Territory
• Employ [PSYOP] Messaging to Delegitimize Adversary and   Legitimize Resistance
• Provide Civil-Military Support … and Expand and Prepare Resistance Capacity for Governance
If this comes to pass, then a shift from counter-revolutionary activities to counterinsurgency is in order.

If a legitimate international authority (IA) recognizes this “resistance” as a Resistance [movement], then it becomes more difficult to label it as terrorist/criminal. It has legal standing in war crimes, treaties, cease fires, etc. IA would want to mediate any agreements. IA would likely want any resistance member captured treated as a combatant rather than a criminal/terrorist. We don’t want any advantage regardless how minute shifting to them and it will, unless the Trump Administration steals a march and names them seditionists.

As John Boyd put it: ” For our success over the long haul and under the most difficult conditions, one needs some unifying vision that can be used to attract the uncommitted as well as pump up friendly resolve and drive and drain away or subvert adversary resolve and drive … a vision rooted in human nature so noble, so attractive that it not only attracts the uncommitted and magnifies the spirit and strength of its adherents, but also undermines the dedication and determination of any competitors or adversaries…. A grand ideal, overarching theme, or noble philosophy … within which individuals as well as societies can shape and adapt to unfolding circumstances – yet offers a way to expose flaws of competing or adversary systems.”

“The Resistance” lacks that, and will never have it. They are base. They are ignoble. They are without honor. They are wrong.

Check out the website here: and here: Distributed Security Inc.


You should be reading this material, it will be on the final exam. Sage advice by good people, so if you don’t have the resume to form an opinion on the subject material then it’s a good place to start with monkey-see monkey-do. Caveat emptor, you may be exposed to ideas that make you feel uncomfortable and intrude on your safe space.

– JJ


Guest Post: The Russians are Coming…Maybe?

Hillary ran all over Trump for saying he might question election results. Obama started the fake news/hacking smokescreen the day after the election. Those items as separate obfuscation led to the ‘Russians’ did it by hacking, even as WikiLeaks told the world that insiders gave them the damaging emails and just after ‘our’ leaders were telling how safe and secure our election process was/is. Everyone who doesn’t agree with the Empire’s story is accepting “fake news” and this is in a ‘democracy with free speech’. To be a member of the ruling Empire requires both telling and believing lies.

We’ve been seeing titles like “Kremlin brought Trump to power”, “Moscow interferes in the internal affairs of other states”. It seems that ‘our free press’ have a never-ending supply of these. It doesn’t matter that the recent anti-Russian accusations have been supported by no actual facts, since ‘our free press’ decided to ignore Western intelligence agencies all saying that Russia’s meddling is the ‘fake news’ Obama warned us about and CNN has had to fire people and retract stories.

The mainstream media’s reporting on the ‘Russian hacking’ has most of the world collapsing in laughter. It’s so amateurish by any standards. The rest of the world knows America would never let itself be ‘hacked’ by a foreign country because hacking foreign countries is what the Empire does best. The idea of Russian ‘collusion’ in the ‘election’ as a tool towards toppling Trump becomes further implanted in the minds of the most eager activists. Pointing out these glaring flaws in the latest anti-Russia frenzy is immediately interpreted by cynics as ‘defending Trump’ when it isn’t.

_jy0Go_5hFP3ESUF8TTI7n76U0CIoF76S4747PEpvsIMoral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.” – H.L. Mencken

Wars are discussed as if they’re good options because of the unique mix of ignorance and political cowardice of the entire American political class. Most American politicians apparently believe their own silly propaganda about America’s military being ‘the best’ in the world with no evidence needed. Even those smart enough to realize that this is something nobody outside the Empire takes seriously, they know that saying that publicly is political suicide, so they keep on spewing the patriotic mantra about we are ‘the best’ etc. Some figure that since the Empire spends more on aggression that the rest of the planet combined, that must mean that America’s military must be ‘better’.

Something crazy inevitably happens, like in Syria recently where the State Department had one policy, the Pentagon another and the CIA yet another one. The resulting cognitive dissonance is removed by engaging in doublethink: ‘yes, we screwed up over and over, but we are still the best’. That attitude is at the core of the American inability to learn from past mistakes. If the choice is between an honest evaluation of past operations and political expediency, the latter always prevails. American soldiers are often more capable of self-critical evaluation, especially in the enlisted ranks: the problem is that civilians and generals rarely listen to them.

American foreign policy is wholly dependent on America’s ability to threaten using military force. Every country which dared to defy the Empire did that only after coming to the conclusion that America didn’t have the means to crush it militarily forgetting the potential for ‘arranged coups’. Historically only the weakest, which are already de-facto American colonies, fear the Empire but that’s been changing.

‘Voters’ ignore what they dislike in favour of the tidbits tossed to them to attract their attention. This leads to votes for the Hildabeast by those who prefer peace and in that process ignore all of the things she’s on public record for doing that certainly aren’t peaceful. Same thing with any other politician.

‘Our free press’ camouflages the unsavory history of American interventions in foreign nations using such means as electoral fraud, economic blackmail, political assassinations and the violent overthrow of governments. The post-Soviet Russian state has been on the receiving end of electoral manipulation directed by America. An American-directed IMF “emergency infusion” of many billion dollars into the Russian economy re-routed a large amount of this to the Western-backed pawn Boris Yeltsin who had been failing with a single-digit approval rating just before the Russian presidential elections of 1996.

The Empire is politically schizophrenic. The still unproven allegations of Russian hacking during the American presidential elections as well as that related to Trump being compromised by a blackmail operation conducted by Russian intelligence only serve to confirm that America has charged into a self-inflicted uproar. What about all the politicians who take money from the Saudis and Gulf emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the zealous advocate of Greater Israel?  What about political payoffs to the flat-earth politicians who are Israel’s amen chorus? There’s no reason for us to believe that the Empire under Trump will contribute to the development of peace. All it can do, much like its predecessors, is cultivate “allies” to wage wars so that weapon systems remain a profitable commodity in the global market and that the economy keeps running without interruption.
‘Our’ unilateral military bloc is intentionally sowing chaos across the entire planet for a very specific purpose. It’s the same purpose all hegemons throughout human history have sought to divide and destroy regions they can’t directly conquer. A destroyed competitor may not be as favorable as a conquered, controlled and exploited competitor, but is certainly preferable to a free and independent competitor contributing to a greater multipolar world order. The Empire, by embedding itself in the chaos it’s created, as it’s proven in Afghanistan and Iraq, only ensures further chaos.

Using this chaos, the Empire can make certain if its own members can’t benefit from the region, no one else will. Everywhere the Empire goes, chaos stays indefinitely. America is no longer the super power it was, but it retains its military dominance and there’s a greater temptation to use it. When the Empire fights for influence it’s to “promote peace and stability in the region” and when Russia does, it demonstrates its “malign influence”, we’re told.

And now, the Empire/America is mixing it up in Africa in ways ‘our free press’ never speaks about so we’ll have more fun on the way. This isn’t about assisting the American military’s African partners in their fight against terrorism. It’s the continuing American Deep State’s fight for resources, to which ‘our’ government, and the corporations it supports, has no right; to insure that the governments of Africa are Western-centric, even if they need to give those governments a coup. It’s about insuring that those resources are only sold in dollars, and it’s to keep Russia and China away from those resources as well. As Chalmers Johnson said “Blowback is another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows.”

Unfortunately, “we the people” are the ones who keep reaping what the government sows. We’re the ones who suffer every time, directly and indirectly, from the blowback. We’re made to pay trillions of dollars in taxes to a military/industrial complex that kills without conscience. We’ve been saddled with a crumbling infrastructure, impoverished cities and a faltering economy while our tax dollars are squandered on unrestrained military installations and used to prop up foreign economies. We’ve been stripped of our freedoms. We’re treated like suspects and enemy combatants.

We’re spied on by government agents: our communications read, our movements tracked, our faces mapped, our biometrics entered into a government database. We’re terrorized by militarized police who roam our communities and SWAT teams that break into our homes. We’re subjected to invasive physical searches in airports, roadside strip searches and cavity probes, forced blood draws. America will never be safe or secure as long as our government continues to pillage, plunder, bomb, kill, create instability, fund insurgencies, stockpile weapons of mass destruction and police the globe.


– Craig Dudley




Happy Whatever Day

Freedom without virtue is not freedom. I’m not sure if it is morally superior to have had a semblance of freedom and fritter it away through negligence, or never have had it in the first place. Enjoy the barbecues and family time. Whatever you do don’t think about the reason for the holiday, or the current state of the birthright you’ve been gifted. For the love of God don’t do that or you might realize the abject failure of conservatism and become radicalized and (gasp) useful. Consider the following words and how crazy those guys who actually believed, and more importantly ACTED on them were. No compromise, no quarter, no enemies to the right. 

Jesse James


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.