Wherein Max Morton gets everything absolutely right, only to trip on a very large rock he keeps overlooking by the end.
We live in a divided nation. Our politics have become not just polarized, but toxic. For a country founded on the principles of individual liberty, democratic choice in representative government, and republican protection of natural rights, America has seemingly lost its way. American politics have devolved into a zero-sum game power struggle between two wings of the same establishment—with the prize being the privilege of exploiting the American working class. We are a long way, both figuratively and literally, from the raging fires of liberty that opposed the crown’s Stamp Act in 1765.
Like all empires, America’s decline, or “transformation” in the words of our 44th president, was the result of poor decisions by both elected leaders and the citizens who elected them. Corruption on the part of a rent-seeking elite and apathy on the part of the citizens have delivered us to our present situation. Although it is important to understand the mistakes that we made along the road to our failing empire, the real question we should be asking now is what are we to do about our current predicament.
In David Reaboi’s essay in the Claremont Institute’s The American Mind, he discusses the importance of ending traditional America’s favorite pastime of arguing the same ground with the political opposition over and over again—as if minds are not already made up and just one more pithy tweet or witty meme would finally produce a tidal wave of political defections. Instead, he states, we should consider the work we must do in order to salvage some form of republican society that appreciates and protects the founding principles of America’s charter and our way of life.
This is an issue that cannot get enough attention. It is fruitless to continue arguing the same tired Left/Right arguments. “Owning the libs” on Twitter, relentlessly calling out the hypocrisy of our political opponents, and focusing our time and attention on outrageous content may be entertaining, but it won’t save us from the oppression and serfdom of the authoritarian oligarchy that is presently transforming America.
As an example, last week the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives published proposed rules to restrict ownership of AR pistols, which tens of millions of Americans legally own and use for self-defense and sporting purposes. The catalyst for this new classification and restriction under the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the Biden regime’s executive order on implementing greater gun control in America—under the guise of reducing gun violence.
The conservative commentariat’s response has been loudly to point out that this will have little or no effect on the effort to quell gun violence. Really? Does anyone honestly believe the regime’s interest in banning tens of millions of legally owned firearms and potentially making millions of law-abiding Americans felons overnight is for the purpose of reducing gun violence? This has nothing to do with preventing gun violence and everything to do with disarming American citizens—a longtime, major plank of the Democratic Party and an essential step towards authoritarian rule for every dictator in modern history.
When we give credibility to a lie by arguing against it as if it were a sincere assertion, we are diminishing our brand and reinforcing the regime’s misrepresentations. Instead of wasting time and bandwidth on the regime’s specious gun violence argument, why not concern ourselves with what we can do to thwart this and future efforts to restrict our constitutional rights? Why not focus on reforming the 1934 National Firearms Act to remove arbitrary restrictions on firearms and accessories that give the tyrant an entry to confiscation? It is not enough to attempt to conserve the last shards of our constitutional rights—we must instead focus on advancing our cause of liberty.
One of the difficulties with human nature is our tendency to remain frozen in a familiar construct. Right now, many Americans are still living in a construct that is no longer germane to the present. They have failed to detect the significant changes in our society’s institutions. The hard reality is we are living in a post-truth and post-justice world where our past ideas of freedom, individual liberty, and equal justice are simply no longer valid. The expectation that debate matters in a post-truth society inevitably leads to disappointment when no one cares about your truth. The idea that someone will save us from tyranny as long as we send money to a political party and cast our vote for the right candidate is obsolete—if we are to be saved, it is up to us to be the cavalry.
Traditional Americans can only be free if they create the conditions for their freedom. In order to accomplish this, they must remove or nullify the power of any faction opposed to that freedom. In this case, the oligarchy and their authoritarian-minded supporters are that faction. They wish to impose their design of a managed society onto traditional America—a design that does away with freedom, individual liberty, sovereign nation states, and equal justice under law. It is up to us, traditional Americans, to prevent that from happening. We must act to save ourselves. But what can we do? First, stop the tit-for-tat debate theater. Second, focus on the solution.
No argument from me to this point, with any of it. Morton remains on point through several more ‘graphs. But the big rock is right down the road, just waiting.
In practice, federalism requires state governors to assert their existing constitutional role to govern and protect their constituencies while heavily filtering the actions of the federal government within their state. Decentralizing, or reducing the influence of the D.C. regime, can protect the rights of red state citizens, while preserving the structure and efficacy of a representative government in a constitutional republic. Let the states live as they may and assume the bulk of the governing mission. The states should focus inward on governing their people. The federal government, within the powers enumerated in the Constitution, can focus outward on the governing responsibilities external to the states—common defense, diplomacy, national infrastructure, and commerce.
An authoritarian oligarchy doesn’t care about preserving a union of states or whether traditional America participates in its “democracy.” The oligarchy only cares about removing barriers to its business interests and preventing traditional America from getting in the way of its wealth and power. In their model, everyone does as they’re told, while national borders and sovereignty are quaint relics abandoned for the sake of progress, profits, and cheap labor. Traditional Americans should fight to preserve this union, while also preventing the obliteration of their way of life. That’s a fine line to walk, but it’s not an impossible one.
Consider the idea of preserving the union as maintaining a bridge to America as it was intended. While we are a divided nation, decentralizing control via federalism empowers states to govern their citizens in a manner that protects and enables their chosen way of life. It maintains our stake in the union while preserving our liberty. The union is the bridge to facilitate more effective participation of a centralized government if and when the conditions of national unity reemerge. Individual states are free to experience the rewards or consequences of their policies, which also serves as an objective measure to their respective efficacy, and influences others to likewise adopt or shun them. Either way, there is freedom of choice for Americans to live the way they choose without a Washington establishment attempting to impose its one-size-fits-all will on the unwilling.
Federalism necessarily defeats the oligarchy’s consolidation of power and at the same time prevents the premature dissolution of the sovereign nation-state that is America. The ideals that sparked the Declaration of Independence and subsequent armed rebellion from the crown were built upon individual liberty. Our founders chose freedom over subservience, democracy over monarchy, and representative government over a managed society. We have lived by their sacrifices for 256 years. Now it is for Americans to decide whether we will continue as citizens of a republic or as subjects under the rule of a wealthy technocratic elite. Our founders gave us federalism to protect us from the tyranny of the few—traditional Americans should embrace it as the solution to preserve our liberty and our way of life in this deeply divided nation.
Now, I’ve endorsed state nullification and/or open defiance of FederalGovCo edicts, and still do like it. I believe that such a strategy should be attempted, if only as the very last resort to secure justice and resolve this conflict via peaceful means. That said, it’s fanciful and naive in the extreme to seriously expect that it can succeed, or will. How a man as intelligent as Morton is, who can see and interpet matters as clearly as he does, can also believe that the tyrannical, utterly ruthless US government will meekly sit back and allow Real Americans to force it back into its Constitutionally-prescibed box without a fight is beyond my ability to comprehend. Pigs will fly first.
“Just For Reference:
1. suppression of individualism and creativity.
2. impoverishment of artistic values.
3. impoverishment of moral values; a social structure based on self-interest and one-upmanship, rather than altruism.
4. fanatical ideology; often a corrupted form of a valid viable ‘trojan’ ideology which is perverted into a pathological form, bearing little resemblance to the substance of the original.
5. intolerance and suspicion of anyone who is different, or who disagrees with the state.
6. centralized control.
7. widespread corruption.
8. secret activities within government, but surveillance of the general population. (In contrast, a healthy society would have transparent government processes, and respect for privacy of the individual citizen).
9. paranoid and reactionary government.
10. excessive, arbitrary, unfair and inflexible legislation; the power of decision making is reduced/removed from the citizens’ everyday lives.
11. an attitude of hypocrisy and contempt demonstrated by the actions of the ruling class, towards the ideals they claim to follow, and towards the citizens they claim to represent.
12. controlled media, dominated by propaganda.
13. extreme inequality between the richest and poorest.
14. endemic use of corrupted psychological reasoning such as paramoralisms, conversive thinking and doubletalk.
15. rule by force and/or fear of force.
16. people are considered as a ‘resource’ to be exploited (hence the term “human resources”), rather than as individuals with intrinsic human worth.
17. spiritual life is restricted to inflexible and doctrinaire schemes. Anyone attempting to go beyond these boundaries is considered a heretic or insane, and therefore dangerous.
18. arbitrary divisions in the population (class, ethnicity, creed) are inflamed into conflict with one another.
19. suppression of free speech – public debate, demonstration, protest.
20. violation of basic human rights, for example: restriction or denial of basic life necessities such as food, water, shelter; detainment without charge; torture and abuse; slave labour.” https://pathocracy.wordpress.com/definition/
In other words, it’s government(s) and institutions run by psychopaths. Psychopaths react badly when challenged – they don’t have empathy or conscience, so they feel free to do what they need to keep their power. And, of course, they abuse it and the people the have power over for sport. If you don’t like it, you can kill them – that’s the attitude. Otherwise, they’re not leaving. I’ve had a chance to talk with psychopathic criminals – as their defense attorney – and most of them view other people as things that are to be “harvested” – “I want your car, and if you resist me, if you get shot, it’s your fault”. And they’re not crazy, they do check to make sure their prey is not armed, they don’t want to get shot in the act of taking what is rightfully theirs. They’re for gun control – but they’re not giving up *their* guns. The only way to deal with psychopaths is to get rid of them. Actually, a couple of months in the state hospital does wonders, they tend to stay out of trouble because they don’t ever want to go back there. And they will beg and plead – it’s quite something to see. Sometimes it takes three or four trips, but they get cooled out eventually. That unscalable fence around the Capitol might come in handy some day – attendants on the grounds, a sign at the gate reading “Visitors On Sundays, 2pm to 4pm” …
^ – This is the way. – ^
Welcome to crazy town! lol
Wait, it just occurred to me, we must not forget to include large signs, for everyone’s safety really:
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS!
How much of the bureaucracy do you think we can fit in there? Asking for a friend.
Obviously I can’t speak for the man, but my guess would be, like you, he doesn’t really believe some of those things are possible, but are nonetheless a necessary stop along the way; a formality that must be observed & at least offered, for the sake of retaining & maintaining the moral high ground in potential events to come.
Of course, everyone knows this will be a problem:
Clearly they can’t even be trusted just to do that bit, but all of this is really just an opening position.
All in all his message of maintaining freedom & self-determination is at least something people can unite behind, & I think the right one.
It’s perhaps the most recognizable core value & shared interest. In a word, freedom. Freedom to do what you want without being infringed upon. The whole reason billions of people from around the world clamor to come here. The one true core value we all absolutely unequivocally share, & everyone everywhere wants.
That being said, his overall position is just a starting point, but I think a it’s very shrewd decision to retain identity & union & not abandon & denigrate the most valuable ‘brand’ for freedom that’s ever existed in human history, America (& by proxy Western civ in general). The enemy does nothing but denigrate that brand all day every day. As a result, they are wholly unable to benefit from anything it stands for & have nothing whatsoever of value to replace it with. A fact we should be beating them over the head with daily. (Critique without offering a replacement solution is a classic no cost undermining strategy, because they don’t have to defend weaknesses in a replacement solution that they never offer. They are free to simply attack & never have to defend, because they offer nothing to defend. The tactic works great, UNTIL you call them on it every single time they try to use it. When they critique something, ask them what they’re going to replace it with, in detail, & how it’s going to work. And then open season on the plan, or lack thereof [Because they almost never have a plan, that’s the whole strength of using critique, they don’t ever need one].)
This is a fight tailor made for us to win.
What exists is what people are already familiar with, comfortable with, & will support.
What the enemy wants to replace it with (whatever Frankenstein version of marxism/communism/socialism/totalitarianism they’re masquerading it as), people are unfamiliar & uncomfortable with, & so will not support it. It’s too different from what they know. It clearly goes against that reliable rule which is explicitly identified & explained in The Prince.
This fight is ours to lose.
We have all the advantages.
(The ones we don’t have, people tend to vastly overestimate the value, significance, & usefulness of, when push finally does come to shove.)
…all that said, again, all of this is just an opening position; window dressing; stage theatrics; jockeying for optics & moral high ground; a part of the battle that the enemy has already lost & simply is not positioned to ever be able to win; which is also why they’ve already lost the larger war, but either don’t know it, or can’t accept it, which is just going to make the pain that much worse for them in the end.
But at any rate, given Morton’s experience, I would guess he probably expects his opening offer won’t be accepted, but it’s nonetheless still necessary to make it. Just a necessary part of a progression.
We offer reasonable terms, you decline, we war. And we maintain moral high ground, popular support, & international support.
Which, btw, brings up an important point; it’s probably time we started thinking about reaching out to & rallying international allies as well… like, for instance, everyone sick of the EU, so, you know, like everyone in the EU; everyone in Europe being overrun by uncontrolled immigration, so, you know, like everyone in Europe; everyone in the anglosphere who’s been disarmed, so, you know, like everyone in the anglosphere; everyone in Europe who’s pissed off right now, so, you know, like everyone in Europe. Seriously, we’ve got a world full of allies that we haven’t really even begun to tap in more than a precursory way. And I don’t know anyone who loves a globalist. So we’ve all got that in common in addition to all those other things, & a shared history in Western civilization.
If only we had some folks with expat connections & foreign clandestine service experience in the movement.
What’s that? We do. Oh… how interesting.