| |
|
Mon Jun 10 02:39:30 UTC 2019 hello again well, old man, there's no good way to tell you. you already know most of it. how much time i have left at this point i don't know. guess i'll make the best of it, as long as i remain lucid and physically able to get out of bed and write. i put a lot of things off for too long, but maybe i can get this done. i'll see that you get all my papers, in case you don't get up here to see me before. seeing my folks go, and your own experience with that, i know it can be harder for the ones left behind. but we go way back, and you're at least as tough as me. come see me if you can, but if you don't make it while i'm still around, you know jessica and kelli will be happy to see you. look after them for me. anyway, i won't be around to see how this all turns you, but it isn't hard to see it's likely to be bad. probably wouldn't want to be a young person today. no particular order to these things - working from a lot of old notes and making some of it up as i go. happy days. i won't even try to write this with a pen. just can't do that much any more. i can still type, and my penmanship was never like yours, or your father. his papers looked like they were written by george washington or one of those guys. don't know when people stopped writing. but i digress. i'll do the best i can with this, one-finger typing, and try to make it somewhat coherent. i'm taking as little pain medication as i can get by with - drugs always make it hard to think clearly (they do that at everyone, sadly a lot of people don't seem to notice) it's just a collection of thoughts, much of it stuff we've talked about plenty of times before, but maybe you'll want to organize it and maybe add your own ideas, maybe someone wil be interested and able to do something with it. i've attached the first one, to get us started. if i don't see you again, frank (Following is the content of our emails from mid-to-late 2019) Frank think about it for a second. like me, you've read books and seen films, about a man on death row, time is running out, and pretty soon he's going to die. only problem is, he isn't guilty of the crime he is there for, or any crime at all. happens in the real world more than anyone wants to think about, and most people just don't think about it at all. so you're sitting here, watching the clock running down. no more appeals, no more delays, all used up, and soon they're gonna kill you. most of us don't want to even think about how that would feel. but, something happens, you get a chance to escape, and you go for it. so, for the purpose of this discussion, you are free of your cell but still inside the prison. you have to get by guards (a lot of them once they notice you're not where you are supposed to be) at first though, not so bad. you encounter a guard, armed. you take him by surprise and disable and disarm him. at this point, you're not in too deep in the moral choices that await - you have rendered him unconscious and have his weapon and a couple of spare magazines. you continue to make your way to freedom... there's another guard. he sees you, identifies you as a prisoner with a weapon, or soon will, and will draw his own weapon and either kill you or at least order you to drop our own weapon and surrender. you have a couple of seconds to decide... are you going to shoot the guard, likely killing him, and continue your escape? or meekly surrender and go back to a now certain death? you know nothing about the guard. he may be a perfectly decent human being, wife and kids, all that. he is also trying to kill you. just keeping you inside the prison will result in your death, and you have a right to live. do you have a right to live at his expense? is there that much difference in being an innocent man about to be ground up in the gears of injustice (and you and i both know how corrupt everything about this society is, from the local city and county government all the way to the top, and the higher you go the worse it is), or being, let us say, a political prisoner or an ethnic minority or other oppressed person in a concentration camp, waiting to be taken to the gallows or gas chamber or whatever they use there? if you were escaping the latter situation, is it reasonable to kill a guard or a soldier attempting to stop you or recapture you? i suggest that it is not. it is likely that in my case, that guard is dead. however, that is a decision each person must make. there have been man cases of people giving up their lives for others with even less obligation that that the guy trying to kill you (the guard) might not be a bad person. the fact that the guard doesn't know you are not guilty doesn't matter - when he took the job he agreed to help the state imprison (and in some cases kill) whomever they sent to be imprisoned or killed. he isn't interested in your guilt, or the absence thereof. as you make your way to freedom you perhaps encounter other guards. in for a penny, as they say - they're history. now outside, you manage to blend in to the scenery, perhaps acquire some new clothing to replace your prison uniform, but not much else to alter your appearance. so once the public, and the 'law enforcement' apparatus is alerted, every cop you meet is also an enemy. if he recognizes you, he will attempt to apprehend you, or failing at that, kill you. does this present a new moral dilemma? why should it? anyone who attempts to stop you is trying to kill you, and you have done nothing to deserve death. the fact that they don't know is irrelevant, and they (particularly cops) are condemned by their own policy. ignorance of the law, they will tell you, is no excuse. so be it. goodbye officer. what if the cop is a woman? does that really make any difference? remember, they all volunteered for this duty - you didn't. of course, you are free to give it up at any time. do you shoot a civilian? or in the vicinity of bystanders, like a young mother with her children? ok, at some point, the justification for lethal violence being sufficiently dubious, you might have to give it up. either surrender and go meekly to your death, or take the matter out the the state's hands entirely, and end your earthly existence on your terms. of course, the foregoing is not about the small (in the grand scheme, as some are wont to say) matter of what an individual may do (morally, ethically - the law is irrelevant when it conflicts with justice) to preserve his existence when he has done nothing to forfeit same. the question we have before us is much more serious. our nation, our society (what remains of it that is of any value), is in effect on death row, and the executioner is coming. soon. the nation many great men gave so much to build and preserve, from the founders who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor (and many of them lost their lives and fortunes) to our ancestors - my father and yours in the second world war, my uncle in korea, your cousin (who was a good friend to me and like a big brother to you) died in vietnam, where we both got scars, some that can't be seen, but came home alive - is in danger of being lost. sorry for the long sentence, but it's a big thing. we are clearly near, if not at, the point at which a political solution to the problem will no longer be possible. you told me after the 2012 election that the parasites now outnumber the hosts. maybe not quite then, possibly even now, but we are very close. once the nominally decent people are a minority, it's over. discussing the reasons, as you and i and our friends and family have done for years, is no longer useful. the only question now is whether something changes very soon and reaching far into both society and government, in which case we may have a chance, or whether we continue into the darkness, possibly never to return. someone suggested a while back, before the 2016 election, that if this country falls it will mean a thousand years of darkness for the entire world. without divine intervention, i suspect that is likely to be true. unlike the unjustly condemned man, who might give up his live rather than take the life of another person, however justified he may be, we do not have the right to sacrifice the lives of millions of our countrymen, to say nothing of millions, indeed billions more elsewhere in the world, who will suffer with us if this country falls. that fact that others have been complacent, lazy, apathetic, and selfish does not give us the right to do nothing. what, then, can be done? i certainly won't be around to see the eventual destination of this society, and you may not either. perhaps if i live long enough to finish this, you can discuss it with someone who has an idea or two. Ishmael As Paul said after expressing an important point "What shall we say then?" You seem to have covered it. We discussed the concept of the unjustly condemned man more than once, and completely agree. In the example we used, of a single human being being ground up in the gears of injustice, the answer isn't difficult. I found, as you did, that discussing it with most people yielded rather interesting results. Of course, you used a parable which, as you no doubt know, was not exact. Innocent men have been imprisoned and killed for as long as mankind has been practicing its artificial justice. Partly because human beings are imperfect and make mistakes (accounting for, I suspect, a very small percentage of unjust punishments), and in part because people are corrupt and wicked. All of us are, a little. Most of us control it to some degree (fortunately, most of us control it a lot) while others do not, although they conceal it rather well. These are the people who eventually infest all the institutions a society. The famous quotation by Lord Acton was close to being right, yet he missed it completely and, as the old proverb has it, a miss is a good as a mile. The remainder of the quotation is interesting as well, as he suggests that 'great men are almost always bad men'. That is self-contradictory. A bad man may be wealthy, powerful, or famous - but those things do not make a man great. One would think that a man of his supposed learning and wisdom would have understood that the desire for power exists in people who are already corrupt. They just don't have an opportunity to demonstrate their true character until they have power over other people. That sort of not quite understanding how things work may contribute to our present situation, but it is not close to being the only thing. We only have to get out of bed in the morning and go outside and into public places, or watch 'news' and entertainment being consumed by the public, the behavior of people in general, to see that our society has become thoroughly rotten. The selfish, lazy, apathetic nature of too many people has planted a cancer that is now out of control. As I told you once, beyond the smallest of societal units, a small tribe or village, a few hundred or at most a few thousand (which is stretching it) persons, it is not possible for people to govern themselves responsibly. As the population increases, there will be more people who wish to indulge their personal desires (usually deviant in nature) no matter what the consequences for others are. If no one stops them, they will increase in number and eventually destroy the society. I once read an account (which may or may be true in its specifics but certainly has been practiced before) of a primitive people in Africa, who live a very simple hunter-gatherer existence in small tribes such as I mentioned. They have a very peaceful existence without the apparatus of law enforcement and administration of justice most people have. No jails, no police, no courts. They maintain this orderly society by ensuring no disruptive person lives long enough to cause serious problems. As children grow up and become adults, they are observed by the other members of the tribe, and if they act in an anti- social way they are counseled and corrected. An individual who proves intractable into adulthood will one day simply disappear without a trace, and all is well with those who are normal and behave properly. Larger, more advanced societies try to deal with these problems, but inevitably fail because many are unwilling to do the hard work, and the depraved members take advantage of this. The elders of the aforementioned aboriginal tribe certainly do not want to take a young man out in the wilderness and kill him. It must be a terrible thing to even contemplate, yet the alternative is the destruction of a way of life for an entire people. People who wish to criticize godly people point to the rather harsh laws given to Moses for the governance of the people of Israel (similar in some cases to the aborigines - evildoers were killed by the community, in some cases with their own kin casting the first stone) but abandoning the law led to their eventual destruction. To answer the larger question - what can be done? I am guessing that is a rhetorical question. In terms of saving our country, we have already lost. We may hold back the darkness for a while, but the rot is too deep, and the demographic bomb designed to ensure that the Enemy prevails is exploding, if I may use that term for something happening in slow motion. Benjamin Franklin is said to have replied someone who asked, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, what sort of government they had created, "A republic, if you can keep it". John Adams said the the Constitution was devised for a moral and religious people, and was inadequate for any other kind. Clearly, we have failed to keep the Republic. It hasn't yet completely disintegrated, but little is left. And as for being moral and religious (read obedient to God there) too many of us are not, and of those who are, few are doing anything to halt the spread of evil. In other words, the good men are doing nothing. Whether they will, before it is too late, I have no idea. Having already read all your notes (I know you' re not here to read this, my friend, but you will always be with me, and for me you are never gone. I'll likely see you soon enough anyway) I know some of this is covered later. For now I can only say that I believe there is a solution, but only if the right men can be found, and they act before it is too late. And so, on to the next part. Frank what can be done to save this country? i believe we agree on the preferred solution. that depends on the will of our creator, but that in turn relies, i believe, on our own actions. if we, as a society (or at least a large part of it) are willing to turn away from our lives of apathy, laziness, and selfishness, we might be saved. the promise has always been there - punishment for disobedience and forgiveness for repentance. solomon was told this after the dedication of the temple (2 chronicles, chapter 7). when elijah suggested israel in the depths or depravity (during the reign of ahab) was not worth saving, he was told there were still a few who had remained faithful (1 kings, chapter 19) but you know all this. we've talked about it often enough. i don't know how large a part of the population of israel the seven thousand was, but israel probably had a fairly large population by then (likely several millions), yet a relatively small number would allow the nation to be spared. abraham was told the wicked cities of sodom and gomorrah would be spared if ten righteous men (likely from a population of thousands) could be found there. so making america godly again is not an insurmountable task, if we are to be allowed the opportunity. how that might be done, i can only speculate. i think, perhaps a modern prophet (an elijah for our time, or a billy graham), someone who can receive and carry the message to the people, and persuade enough of us to repent that we might be given another chance. there is a temptation to try to make that happen - find a likely candidate and create a support organization and raise funds to carry out the mission? but i'm not sure trying to make it happen like that is the right way. if that is to happen, i suspect the prophet will be called in the same was as before, and we should pray for that to happen, and hope to recognize him and help in any way we can. what other ways are there? if we wait long enough (and something extraordinary does not happen before) we will most likely find ourselves at the diverging paths - one leading to recovery and redemption, the other to (possibly permanent) darkness. the trap was set long ago, and with each year of decline we come closer to the point at which a peaceful solution (other than surrender) is no longer available. how close to that point should be before taking the most desperate measures? certainly, when we are being hauled off to the gulags and gas chambers, it will probably be too late. the most radical solution (destruction of the enemy by ruthless assault without regard for either conscience of personal survival) should certainly be put off as long as possible, but i will discuss it first, before moving on to some perhaps less severe actions. some of those, indeed most of them, can be implemented now, without being noticed or at least recognized for what they are. the only missing elements are organization and money. i believe that if some of the less drastic solutions are put in place in the near future, the more unfortunate choice (between a bloody campaign of extermination of the enemy and surrendering our own existence) can be avoided. Ishmael Well, old man, we certainly talked about this enough, even quite a few years back, before it became apparent how quickly things were going south. I suspect the thing we agree most about is that we don't know. We haven' t talked often in recent months, but it is something I have continued to think about. If possible, I will address it in more depth in a separate paper later. Whether it is turning the populace back to repentance and prayer for deliverance (certainly that should be the primary objective) or preparing for something else, organization and money are, as you said, necessary. Not that divine intervention needs help, still we should support those doing the work in any way we can. The problem, of course, is that we don't know. If we are going down and don't intend to go quietly, we still need resources. I often wonder if a latter-day group of founding fathers could come to exist, and if they could do what needs to be done. Even though we know that the founders confronted, with meager resources, one of the most powerful (and ruthless) empires in existence, it is difficult to completely appreciate the magnitude of their actions. If they had lost they would have, as Benjamin Franklin said, been hanged (at best, as the British continued to practice some thoroughly evil methods of killing people well into the 19th century). As for resistance, and the question of when to begin, that is the really big question. The problem with being one of the 'good guys' is that a part of your nature is to not do bad things, and killing people is one of the worst things you can imagine doing, and will be reluctant to do it no matter how justified or necessary it is. The Enemy has no such inhibitions, which is why the sort of regimes we seem to be destined for always have massive amounts of killing, not only during establishment but as a necessity of continuing. Certainly, when the trains are running to the concentration camps and people are disappearing in the middle of the night (and you are expecting your turn to come soon), it is time to do something. Of course, by the it is almost certainly too late to do much more than take a few of them with you. Someone observed, quite a few years back, that it was unfortunately too late to fix things politically but to soon to start killing people. I would suggest that it is past time to be killing people (after all, they are killing us, if only in a random and occasional manner), but who wants to do it. And without a support system (including means for discouraging the retribution against the assassins) not much can be accomplished. I do have some solutions in mind, some of which might be successfully implemented even at this late date. I will tentatively call that Appendix A. Unfortunately my days are never long enough. Until later. Frank we have sometimes discussed the strategy employed by michael collins in what is generally called the irish war of independence. unable to effect a military campaign of any consequence, much less one that could actually prevail against the still powerful (and still utterly ruthless to the point of using tactics that were by any reasonable assessment, pure unadulterated evil) british empire, collins did what was possible rather than attempting the impossible. by eliminating the british operatives and attacking the ric (collaborators oppressing their own people) he rendered the country ungovernable without imposition of complete and likely permanent martial law, something the british could not afford politically or, given the stakes, financially. obviously, this is not ireland, which is both good and bad. the country and its population are much larger, and the problem is more complex. the large area is much more difficult to control, even under the most severe conditions (nationwide martial law). hiding a small group of guerilla fighters and facilitating their attacks would be much easier. the problem of surgically removing the cancerous tumors would be much more complex. this would involve not just dealing with those in law enforcement, the 'justice system', and others who signed up for a dangerous job. the rot is much deeper and varied - there would likely have to be targets in political positions (mainly at the federal level), as well as prosecutors and judges. even the generic police personnel, at the state and local levels, would by now be guilty (assuming we waited until the gulags were up and running and our people vanishing into secret prison and unmarked graves). this would be a really ugly task, one no sane man would want or wish on anyone else. michael collins was said to be a devout roman catholic - how did he manage to order the (sometimes rather brutal) assassinations of his enemies? it was a war. in his case a war for the freedom of his homeland, and to end the evil mistreatment of his people of course, several elements would have to be brought together - timing, money, organization and leadership. to be successful, not only in restoring the constitutional rule of law but avoiding the chaos which would likely prove fatal, the organization would have to have men much like the founders, with the temperament to carry it out. were it possible to convent such a formidable assemblage of patriots, it might be prudent, even today, to plan for such an eventuality. raising money would not be so difficult - some of the men would themselves be wealthy and have connections with wealthy men sympathetic to the cause, and with the proper approach to the patriot population at large, much more could be acquired (consider the 60 million people who voted for the right side in the last election - one million contributions of a thousand dollars is a billion. most people on that side are productive working people who could likely find that much for the right cause, and out of sixty million one must suspect that more than a mere million would contribute.) with just a few billion in the bank (figuratively speaking), an effective organization could be set up, with secure communications, members stationed outside the country, and other needs of a force ready to strike if necessary. while the thought of having to actually do it is unpleasant, as a contingency (and most of what i write is about contingency plans or preventive measures) it deserves consideration. Ishmael As for the question of when to start killing people, I have no answer. Certainly, once power is firmly in the hands of the enemy, it is likely to be too late. Some tipping points to consider: * An unequivocal abolition of any part or parts of the Bill of Rights, whether by 'law' or arbitrary action (conceivably things might be so bad that a majority of states would approve doing away with one of the amendments contained therein - we might be closer than I care to think about). * Large numbers of arrests and/or killings, particularly based on political attitudes. * Confiscation of weapons, with or without abolishing the Second Amendment * Enforcement by the central government of the various evil policies already in force at state levels (post-birth killing of babies, requirement of churches to accommodate sexual deviants (e.g. performing homosexual marriages), complete control of children (no private schools or home schooling). The easier question is when to prepare. The answer is now, or if it were possible, about twenty years ago. Organizations set up by the right type of men, carefully organized and controlled, should be created and most importantly, funded. Fund-raising should be underway at once, and some of the more innocuous could begin. These would include creating the higher positions (leaders and planners), defining policies and goals, creating communications networks and techniques (emphasis on secrecy and of course, effective encryption). Safe houses can be designated early, as can installations outside the country. As for how (given that money is a necessity for any war), two simultaneous approaches come to mind: * Considering that (as mentioned elsewhere in your notes) one thousand contributions of a thousand dollars is a million, and a million thousands is a billion. Given the sixty million or more voter for the (nominally) right side in presidential elections, there is sixty billion dollars. Probably only a few (five to ten) billion would be needed to wage an effective campaign. And of course, not all those sixty million are going to help, but a good many will if they can be persuaded. Don't forget that these are real people (unlike the dead, non- existent, or otherwise fraudulent 'voters' who make up the other side of the electorate. And these real people in large part, actually have money, unlike many of those on the other side. * There a quite a few wealthy individuals, many of them retired or sufficiently wealthy they don't have to go to work, and can contribute without fear of ostracization. Some of them are wealthy businessmen (founding fathers?), others have had successful careers in show business and have considerable fortunes. These men could contribute considerably to the financial needs, and could serve as creative elements (set up a think tank). With financial means secured, preparation can begin, and some preemptive actions could begin, e.g. legal and political combat to slow the progress of the disease. Frank as both of us have been readers of science fiction for many years (actual sf, not the stuff of film and television) we have often discussed scenarios from various works and their possible place in our own dystopian future (our present, actually - we are there, just not over the edge yet) since speculative fiction writers have for many years often been quite accurate in depictions of the future where not only technology but societal evolution, some of their ideas about how unpleasant situations might be dealt with by those who don't want to go quietly into whatever ugly future is being offered. there are many examples (after all, your library has what - thousands of volumes just in this genre) but there are two we have sometimes discussed in this context. the first is the fremen society of the dune universe, the other is a.e. van vogt's weapons shops. to deal with the weapons makers first - van vogt's writing (like much sf is rather vague in many areas (so is herbert's) and also relies on technology that doesn't exist in our time, and isn't likely to any time soon. two aspects, however, have some merit. the first is the idea of providing weapons the a subdued population that never had much fight in it to begin with. the ability to put weapons in the hands of those willing to use them, as long as such people exist, could prove useful in slowing the cancer of tyranny. considering that the persons charged with maintaining order are generally not of high quality themselves, many of them are likely to be intimidated by any resistance. and as observed in the irish situation, killing a few of them would go a long way towards making the others less enthusiastic about doing their jobs. the other idea, that of a powerful organization able to impose penalties on misbehaving governmental (or other) entities, in whatever form may be appropriate (the weapons makers) would be a useful tool, combined with others in both cases, much would depend on the cunning and courage of the resistance, since the technology to make it easier isn't likely to be available. a somewhat more feasible solution would likely be to implement the sietch concept of the fremen in frank herbert's dune. i'll expand on that in the next part, but briefly, i believe it should be possible to create, say, autonomous enclaves which have the ability to defend their territory as well as protecting their members when they are outside, by various means. of course, herbert's fremen had the advantage of being able to retreat to areas of the planet inaccessible to those without their organization, knowledge, and survival skills. we can't do that here - but the sietch concept, at least in its early form, could take the form of no-go zones.these already exist (denials by those in authority notwithstanding) whether in the form of muslim zones in europe, or in areas of this country (mostly in large cities) where there is so much risk (due to criminal activity and hostility to authority) that the police simply don't dare go in except in the most extreme cases. add in the ability and willingness to make invaders pay a high price (dead burnt bodies) if they attack, and it might be possible, at least for a while, to arrive at a truce (don't bother us and we won't bother you) we're both fans of niven and pournelle. they had a lot of interesting ideas, coming from a couple of intelligent and thoughtful writers. heinlein, many others, especially before the current (what? 90's onward, probably before that) crop of garbage producers rendered the genre rather irrelevant in its present form. if i had a few million to convene a think tank to figure out how to save the world, or at least our part of it, sf certainly should not be ignored. lot of good ideas there. Ishmael Yeah, we talked about those two subjects a lot. How likely it is you could pull off either scenario. The Weapons Makers setup would most likely look like some very sophisticated ninja-like types in our world - secrecy, near-magical combat techniques, the most effective utilization of available technology, and of course a level of fearless commitment to the cause. Unpleasant as it might seem, both ruthless killing of enemies and willingness to commit suicide to maintain secrecy or deny the enemy the propaganda victory of capturing resisters. Ultimately, this would have to be more of a development over time of a basic guerilla resistance. The sietch concept is much more interesting and probably somewhat easier to initiate, if only because it can begin before there is an urgent need for it (i.e. now). It is one of my three preferred strategies, and thus will be addressed in more depth later. Basically, though, the idea is to have a number of independent but allied social units, probably numbering in the hundreds, certainly not over a thousand (as I discussed earlier, only relatively small groups of people can effectively govern themselves). Having a large number of them (one hopes, eventually) which are practically impossible to attack without sustaining massive casualties and possibly damage to non-combatant areas of society. Think about how effective this can be, looking at the results of relatively unorganized amateurs. The Oklahoma City affair caused at least some caution on later actions by federal authorities. There have in fact not been any massacres of the Waco variety, and most killing is being done by local and state police forces. The Bundy Ranch affair probably ended with minimal violence due to the presence of civilian counter-snipers who were believed to be quite willing to take out any government agents who committed a killing. (They did murder a few cows, which should tell you something about the nature of the enemy even at this stage - most likely it will only get worse) Actually, if the killers of Randy Weaver's wife and son had been held accountable, it is likely that Oklahoma City would not have happened, but the government has made it clear that they have every intention of doing what they please when it comes to killing citizens, and brutal retaliation is the only thing that will impede this behavior. The foregoing assumes, of course, that a guy named Timothy McVeigh actually did the Oklahoma City deed. You and I and a handful of others have seen rather convincing proof that he was at most peripherally involved, and it was mostly an event put on by Deep State operatives (the observant reader may notice, in view of recent news, that Deep State operatives who have been denying for the past several years are now admitting that it exists and asserting that this is a good thing because it ensures that the current state of affairs is preserved and continues towards its ultimate goal) to facilitate the creation of new laws and the curtailment of liberty, in the same way the events of 11 September 2001 were used, to an even greater degree. It looks like your next notes concern the sietch concept, so let us move on to that. Frank title this part 'sietch mentality' so, how do you implement the sietch concept in this world? well, as i observed earlier, the analogy isn't precise. obviously there is not a distant, inaccessible (except to the initiated) desert fastness to hide in, and the societal order isn't possible (or probably even desirable) for our purposes. we can't have disputes settled by duels to the death (or leadership succession, for that matter). i'm more interested in how groups of people with a similar mindset and goals (preservation of the republic, restoration of the rule of law, removing bad stuff and preventing it from coming back) can make a secure environment for themselves and those who will come after them. secure, in this case, means safety from the tyrannical overlords and the ability to maintain their way of life while working to restore order. these communities would have to be self-sufficient (though not necessarily on an individual basis and in all matters - more on that later) so the first and probably most important matter is - where? and without any readily available unassailable defense - how? ok, let's think about that for a minute. in the modern age (2019 as i write this) the closest thing is the no-go zone as it exists in various parts of the world. mostly in europe, where muslim enclaves have become (denials of the ineffectual governments notwithstanding) practically impenetrable. not only do the authorities refuse to enforce the law there, but various private services (e.g. delivery companies) will not service those areas because of the danger to their employees and property. these exist to some degree in this country as well, as areas in large cities where crime (and probably health hazards as well) make authorities unwilling to go in except in the most extreme circumstances. to be sure, these areas certainly could be invaded and cleaned out with sufficient resources, but even today the loss of life (on both sides - but the state is unwilling to experience those kinds of losses) and destruction would be considerable. add to that the consequences of attacking a group of people willing to fight to the last man, woman and child, and it would be unacceptable under almost any circumstances. of course, a demonstration would be required. which is to say, they would have to try it at least once and find out it wasn't a good idea, but after that the new order would be established. i would suggest that this has been demonstrated to some degree. after the waco massacre in 1993 and the lesser- known (to most of the sheeple) ruby ridge incident led to the oklahoma city bombing, the government has been more circumspect in the way it handles such situations. of course, this does not apply to state and municipal police forces, which continue to murder citizens through corruption and ineptitude (no-knock raids on the wrong house, warrants against innocent people obtained by perjury by police), and these go almost completely unpunished. i rather suspect that if some of these victims (or their next of kin if the victims are dead) had the money and connections to have these corrupt cops done away with in such a way that the reason is well known, it would happen less. not that you or i would do such a thing, or advocate it. but it is an interesting concept. in any case, the federal government (and this is almost certainly true of state and local authorities) will avoid the kind of carnage experienced at oklahoma city, whether it is retaliation or resistance. probably if the hapless souls at waco had inflicted greater casualties, either in the initial contact or the final assault, it would have had a beneficial effect. so, having established our sietch(es), well supplied and armed, defended against infiltration or any surveillance penetration, the main idea is to make it as near unassailable as is possible. of course, the bad guys can use nukes (i recently a read that a congressman suggested exactly that), or use a massive amount of hardware and personnel, but if every person in the sietch fights to the death and takes out as many enemies as possible (possibly aided by some doomsday devices to go off either during the fight or during the cleanup), it isn't likely to happen more than once or twice. one hopes, of course, that no large-scale violence would ever occur, but with the direction the country is going and with the probable outcome if nothing is done, a bloody fight or two will be small of little consequence compared to what will befall the population. of course, if in the end everything fails and we end up with a tyrannical government with sufficient resources and the willingness to use them, the sietches are unlikely to survive for long. but making them pay a price is better than not. as you once said about the proverb about dying on your feet rather than live on your knees, those who choose to kneel will still die eventually. it's getting late and i'm not feeling too good - will get some sleep and try to work some more tomorrow. ok. so we have a general idea of relatively impregnable enclaves (at least in the short term, before things get real bad) which may also be to some degree invisible, as we shall see. lacking the protection of an impassable desert or other barrier, where do we put them? pretty much anywhere. a quick note - obviously this has been tried before. by amateurs. the hapless denizens of the waco enclave and some others, tried to set up closed communities of like- minded (or maybe indoctrinated) people. they failed for several reasons: 1. their motives were a fanatical attachment to a religious or political concept, and this clouds judgment. also, they are often led by a person or persons using the organization for their own purposes (not to mention the fact that the leaders are often insane or evil, or both, as in the jim jones affair) 2. the political establishment does not like people doing this, no matter how innocent their motives may be or how harmless their activity is, and will find an excuse to persecute them and shut them down. additionally, the neighbors (of wherever they are located) will be suspicious and at best will not help them if they are attacked and will likely view their destruction as a good thing. 3. they are usually underfunded. often the members are not well off to begin with, and even the leaders often have no assets (and are sometimes there to plunder the flock). a certain amount of financial assets is essential. there are probably any number of other factors, but let's deal with these. we fix the first problem with a disciplined approach to recruiting (and retaining) membership. as i said before, we can't be having duels to winnow the unsuitable, but the structure of the organization can be used to make it possible to evict unsuitable persons with minimal problems. the second problem is dealt with by a combination of low visibility and the knowledge that the sietch cannot be attacked with impunity, as discussed earlier. finally, funding must be handled before work begins, and this may require some creativity, but it can be done. again, a later discussion. ok, that wasn't really quick, but now on to the question of where. well, given that we don't have to remodel caves to live in, we have a lot of options. 1. sizeable tracts of land can be purchased (rather cheaply in some areas) forty acres, in the form of a square, is a quarter mile wide and deep. that's larger than a some small towns. you can put a lot of people and stuff there. move up to a quarter-section (160 acres) and it's a half mile on each side (in a square). a section is a square mile (i don't have to tell a farm kid that) these areas often come with some natural boundaries (roads, ditches, etc.) which are the beginning of a barrier, and can be improved upon. the larger the area is, the more difficult to search, if the authorities do manage to get in, legally or otherwise. 2. a large apartment complex (probably in smaller cities), of several hundred units and a good bit of open ground, could be converted into a small stronghold. it may come with some gates and fencing, or they can be added. rundown properties needing repair would be good candidates. 3. old ships (cruise ships, cargo ships, whatever) can be used. a fleet of them would hold quite a few people, and of course can be placed outside any national jurisdiction. consider this in light of sietches working together - if a member needed to escape his own country or if something needed to be concealed, taking it offshore would be useful. 4. there are many other possibilities, but i'll stop with this one. consider taking over small towns in lightly populated areas. there are towns with only a few hundred residents which have a city government - mayor, city council, police department, etc. with perhaps only a couple hundred voters, moving in and assimilating the community would be possible. in some places there may be prospective members among the community to help. again, not being obnoxious is useful here - a lot of people would never notice what was going on. it might even be possible to take over several communities and run the entire county - with local law enforcement under the control of the sietch, this could prove to be quite useful. if done with sufficient subtlety these could be literally hidden in plain sight. so, what do we do in these places? besides be protected from the bad stuff going on outside? well, that's the primary objective - a secure place to live according to principle. however, if the situation outside continues to deteriorate (complete tyranny, dissenters imprisoned/killed /reeducated, whatever, widespread starvation and sickness, with the elites insulated and the army (now converted to a police force) protecting them and maintaining order in return for a little more food and basic needs - the sietches will be attacked at some point. as i said before, there will likely be probes before, but making the attackers pay will deter that, but only for a while. so there is obviously a need to produce weapons and other tools of defense, and train the members in their use. this includes women and children, even the elderly and infirm to whatever degree they are able (a not perfect physical specimen, due to age or other causes, can man a sniper position or operate artillery, children can carry ammunition and assist with medical care, and even, in the worst case, take out as many enemies as possible before being killed. that's something we hope would never happen) of course, speaking of children, they would be educated within the sietch. that will keep them free of indoctrination and the degenerate condition of the outside world. assuming a number of sietches are eventually formed, in a variety of locations both in and out of the country, assets can be pooled to allow them to interact and assist each other. sietches with aircraft and pilots can provide transportation not subject to surveillance and interference. some might have more advanced medical facilities - any sietch should have some capacity (have you noticed how many doctors are 'preppers'?) - but those with the infrastructure could have hospitals for needs beyond the basics. automobiles would be another need - mechanics able to repair and recondition older vehicles would reduce the need to buy new ones (at high cost, not to mention the built-in surveillance tools). these are just a few of the many ways to maintain secure, free communities. as the process continues and needs arise, others will be dealt with. after all, we're looking for adaptable and innovative types. speaking of recruitment, there are usually some crazies attached to the dissident/prepper communities. preventing the bad ones from getting in is preferable to weeding them out later. definitely an important part of the process. Ishmael This may be the most important element of survival. Certainly it is one of the top three, and one of those is rather tenuous at best somewhat problematic, if only due to the required resources. The other has an interesting relationship with the sietch concept. If this were to be put into execution, finding a different name might be advisable (assuming it had any significant public exposure) to avoid legal issues with the Herbert estate. In case I pass this on to someone, let me first suggest a reading of Dune (just the first book will do) to understand its relevance here. Briefly, though, the indigenous people of Arrakis (Dune) lived somewhat primitive lives in the most in hospitable areas of the vast deserts covering the planet. The planet was ruled by off-worlders appointed by the emperor of the universe, and they did not venture far outside their fortified cities. While the Fremen (the aforementioned indigenous people) lived a rather simple life in a nearly aboriginal, or at least barbarian, tribal order, they were quite capable of using advanced technology to the extent it was useful to them (e.g. weapons). They were also, largely of necessity, extremely hardy in physical makeup, and unbelievably (to those who had the misfortune of encountering them) skilled and ferocious fighters. Just what we need. Think about what would happen if, when a force of federal 'law enforcement' types, perhaps augmented by military force (legal prohibitions notwithstanding - and such details would never even be considered in the kind of future we may be looking at) surrounded the dwelling place of a peaceful, if somewhat eccentric, religious cult and began killed a few of them, and they settled into a siege to either starve the remainder into submission or eventually go in and kill them... ...but while they were waiting (the Waco siege lasted 51 days) some from other communes around the country sent some fighters to help. The attackers find themselves surrounded by enemies ( snipers, operators of improvised artillery, perhaps even equally improvised air attack, or ninja types sneaking into their camp to perform acts of sabotage or assassination). Not expecting them, or even able to find them if they to things right, such operatives could wreak havoc on the operation and probably make such operations impractical if not impossible. After all, it's all very find to work for the FBI or the state police or whatever when you aren't all that likely to get shot at (firefighters are more likely to get killed on the job than cops, and they don't even get to kill people). No, the law enforcement types are not going to be eager to do jobs like this when they don't just fear, but can be almost certain of having their targets return fire. As I observed earlier, the threat of civilian counter-snipers at the Bundy affair had considerable effect on the desire of the Feds to start killing people. Hence the sietch, or at least a more appropriate implementation. Having a number of enclaves (hidden or not) around the country ready to unleash hordes of fighters upon attackers of any of their comrades would have to create some degree of deterrence. Of course, in the worst case, when the last shreds of the constitution have been swept away, these would be very violent affairs indeed, which is why I believe such organization should be taking place now. Even if, by some chance, the nation does return in some measure to its past nature (unlikely, but one can always hope) these organizations could be useful. The best governments can do the wrong thing occasionally, and we have never had the best - only the least bad. I like the ideas you have, and will discuss them at greater length and perhaps add some of my own shortly. I believe that if this society is to be preserved it must change in some ways that may be unthinkable to some, and the sietch concept as it is developed here will be an important element. Frank just a quick note before going on to the next part. what i think of the situation for the patriot/reformer/whatever, is this. you and i watched a lot of auto races back in the day, before that last remaining real sport went to pot. often, there were a handful of cars fast enough to win, maybe at times only one, and there would be one that wasn't quite good enough, but he managed to stay close to the leaders, and at the end, a mechanical failure or crash would eliminate the really fast one(s), and the guy who didn't quite have what it took to win, won anyway. i suspect that whatever measures might be employed to fix our problems, they won't be enough (absent some unexpected factor, and never rule out a miracle) however, having something in place (sufficiently well developed) to exploit the breakdown could a good way to ensure that what follows isn't the chaos and darkness that so often is the result that's why the preceding thoughts on the sietches, and the next part, on autonomous states, are important. the two are not incompatible, by the way, so one should not be dismissed in favor of the other. multiple survival strategies are generally a good idea. careful and constant observation and readiness, combined with the ability to act effectively (manpower, money, organization, etc.) could make it possible to turn disaster into rebirth. Ishmael Certainly, being prepared to take advantage of a situation created by others (mostly likely enemies) is important. For that reason plans should be underway even now (or better yet, some years ago) I would like to think that somewhere, a number of great men who have the ability to understand the need and to find solutions, along with the means (financial and other) to actualize them. I just don't have that much faith in humanity, even the best of us. So many things - fear of being wrong, acting too soon, or the unwillingness to effect harsh measures ever for the most important and righteous cause - cause fatal hesitation. Even if I were a young man and in good health, doing what may in the end need to be done frightens me. As Mr. Bishop reminded overeager apprentice - 'Dead sure, or just sure' Of course, when the need can no longer be denied - the trains are running to the (reeducation, extermination or whatever) camps, people are being slaughtered in the streets, and there is no possibility of peaceful reform, these doubts should no longer exist, and being prepared to do what must be done is a good thing. Frank really, i'm not optimistic about this ever happening. the idea of a modern- day fremen culture building a distributed resistance is more likely, but here goes... really, it would just be returning to the original form of the nation. the states were supposed to hold all power except national defense and a handful of things that had to be standardized, such as minting coin and currency, border control, etc. the reason we are in that state is that just about everything the federal government does these days is completely contrary to the constitution. of course, the last time some of the states tried to resist, it didn't work out well for them. or for anyone, really. the result was complete power being consolidated in the federal government, and the states were no more than lines on a map. in recent years, there have been discussions of secession, in some cases from the enemy itself ( secession has more commonly been an interest of the constitutionalists who want to restore and preserve the original form of government) - in any case, the subject is hardly worth discussing. secession is not practical in any case, and would be unlikely to achieve the desired results. while there would probably not be an armed invasion as in the past case, the secessionist state or states would not be likely to achieve the objective. i suspect there might be a more subtle way to incrementally (slowly, to be sure, at least at first) produce progress. autonomous states or regions exist in many parts of the world (the u.s. has some nominally autonomous territories such as puerto rico). the form varies, but essentially they have some degree of sovereignty relative to their parent countries. given the right conditions (similar to those needed for secession: control of governorship. legislature and courts) a state might chip away at federal control, first in small ways and, having established precedent, go on to bigger and better attacks on external control. how? i would suggest working on some small matters first. the larger issues (prohibiting abortion, homosexual 'marriage', etc.) are not the best ones to attack at first (never mind that they are the more wicked and destructive ones) - they are just too important to the enemy and would draw the most forceful response. it has been recommended by some that we should choose fights small enough to win, but big enough to matter. this is actually a specialty of the enemy, and they are rather good at it. those on the right side, not so much, if only because we often wait until the small battles are over and we must fight the big ones. what, then, is a small but important battle? i would look at some of the innumerable (and unconstitutional) regulations inflicted on the country by the federal government. (never mind for how the innumerable afflictions of the state and local governments - if you can take over the state you can fix those internally). suppose, as an example, federal regulations require schools to serve less than two ounces of dead animal matter in lunches. or, a federal court requires 'transgender' students to use facilities (dressing rooms, etc.) for the opposite actual sex. since this is already happening. so, refuse to comply. is the federal government going to send in the army to make it happen? they already don't enforce the laws against harboring illegal aliens in the 'sanctuary cities', or allowing the use of illegal (under federal law) drugs. and how can they enforce it. well, they can sue, and get massive judgments, which they can not collect except by some type of coercion. if they try to arrest state officials, have the state police, and perhaps a citizen militia raised in preparation for such an eventuality, to prevent it. they can withhold federal funds (that can be challenged in court for a long time, especially by using the sort of judge- shopping the enemy does). and are the schools going to miss less than ten percent of their funds? if highway maintenance funds are withheld, set up toll booths on roads crossing the state. just some ideas - mainly you do whatever can be done and gets results. there are many possibilities, and may possible ways the action can go. i believe this is one of the best chances for slowing our passage into the darkness. of course, as i said, you would have to concentrate a large population of patriots in a state in order to control it. while the idea of taking a state like texas 'private' is attractive, a small state, possibly a coastal state like south carolina (kind of large compared to maine or alaska, but warmer) the idea of taking over alaska is rather amusing. of course, this requires a lot of organization and work, like the sietch concept, but on a much larger scale. however, i believe sietches and autonomous states are two of the best ideas to concentrate resources on. autonomy is obviously much more difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted - it will just take longer and cost more. Ishmael The biggest problem would be creating the first state. The only way, in the present situation, would be to take over a state. It would require an enormous number of people to (very likely) give up their lives for a while (leaving jobs, family, and other things behind) to move to the target area. Using South Carolina as an example, it looks like there are just over three million registered voters there (out of slightly over 5 million - looks a bit suspicious, but then fraud is a problem everywhere, and has been for some time, and South Carolina is probably above average in that department. The population has grown considerably in the the past several decades, and not in a good way. Taking over one of the small northeastern states (Delaware, Rhode Island, or Maine) would be interesting. No matter how it is done, it will certainly be difficult. Moving enough people into one of the states with under a million could probably be accomplished, even with people who had to give up a means of living for several years ( election cycles). Of course, there are probably a lot of retired patriots with money, pension and social security income, and no ties to a particular location. Those could be an important factor. While Maine or Vermont might work, probably one of the Dakotas or Wyoming would be easier, although a place with a seacoast would be desirable. So, perhaps Alaska would be a good bet. There are probably a lot of people there already who would go along. Alaska also eliminates some of the problems of the lower 48 ( transportation corridors running across them), has ocean access, and might be more difficult to invade (an unlikely event but worth considering) Certainly, challenging the central government on rather less consequential matters like school lunches, prison conditions, or something similar. The enemy's strategy has always been to choose battles battles big enough to matter but small enough to win. Incrementalism is an important strategy. Frank this one goes the same way as any other attempt to right the ship. needs money and organization. and time. probably more time than we have. still, there seems no reason not to try. essentially, much of the damage has been done through the entertainment business and the 'educational' system. to deal with education first, there is little that can be done to the government-controlled (whether federal, state or local - they are all corrupt in a serious way) schools. the only thing to do in the beginning is get as many children out of them as can be managed. certainly there are a lot of home-schooled kids, but not near enough to make a big difference. there are some private schools, but there too, not nearly enough. if private schools could be made more affordable it would help a lot. since any substantial progress will require money, this is something that should be considered in recruiting financiers for the project. how do you create a lot of private schools that average citizens can afford to send their children to. the other part is cultural conversion. the society has been corrupted in a big way by television and film, music, and other entertainment media. (the 'news' media also, but there is some resistance on that front, and it is actually successful (i.e. surviving and profitable), what there is of it. the other part would require a lot of money and recruitment of artists, to produce books, films, music, etc. with a healthy message, while making it attractive, especially to young people. if i haven't gotten to it yet: whether through cultural, political, or in the worst case armed insurrection - a successful effort would require both the financial resources and wisdom of a group of great men much like the founders. if they can be found. Ishmael Certainly,a cultural restoration would be the most desirable solution, if time permitted. Unfortunately it does not. Cultural decay, deliberately and incrementally induced, is how we arrived at this state. Socialism was being introduced in the early nineteenth century (I have often thought that, despite the best intentions and endeavors of our founders, the destruction of their experiment began almost as soon as it was established). As for the other diseases, notably greed and sexual immorality, those have always been present in every society in every place and in every time. The only variation is the degree to which they are tolerated, and how long it takes for increasing tolerance to allow them to destroy the society. We are tempted to look at the ancient nation of Israel, given the best deal any people ever got. To keep it all they had to do was obey some simple and reasonable rules such as not killing, stealing, engaging in sexual perversion and a few other things no reasonable person would want to do anyway. Yet they did, going so far as to adopt the most vile pagan religions of their neighbors, including ritual sex orgies and human sacrifice (of children). Why? We both know why (I say as if you were still here) but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is, it is unavoidable and can only be cured by an occasional realignment, and that is rarely voluntary on the part of the decayed society - it must be imposed from outside. Thus, the prospect of restoring the culture is not likely to be viable in terms of a solution, but rather something to be done after the most urgent problems are solved. Thus I address it in the final appendix. Frank the old proverb, 'who watches the watchmen?', is most likely older than anyone knows. when people are given power over other people, even by the consent of the people giving it, it always ends badly. anyone who seeks power is corrupt. just as the love of money is the root of all evil (not money itself - the lust for it) so the lust for power corrupts. so those who are able to acquire it are corrupt right out of the box. when the people of israel asked the aging prophet samuel to give them a king, he warned them that the king would abuse them, conscripting their sons to serve in the army, their daughters to adorn his court (perhaps in ways less innocent that being cooks and hairdressers, human nature being what it is) and would tax them until they regretted their desire for a king. so it is always. the best ruler would be one appointed against his desire, performing the task as a duty rather than ambition. there have been a couple of presidents in recent memory (reagan and trump) who probably fit that description. both gave up a comfortable life in which they could have watched the world fall apart with little concern, yet took the job and with it, the unbelievably virulent hatred from the dark side of our society. but of course, the one would appoint a perfect ruler is the perfect ruler, and has been rejected in one way or another ( through evil desires or apathy) by most of the people. just as the israelites did, and likely with similar results if things don't change. so what happens after the present problems are dealt with? do we just go back to the original plan of the founders? two things are clear - it was a good plan, but obviously has failed, and while it can serve as the basis for a new system, it must be modified. so... oddly enough, one of these founders, john adams, said that the constitution was made for a 'moral and religious people', and would be unsuitable for any other sort. not so odd, really. similarly, a story of benjamin franklin being asked by a citizen what the constitutional convention had produced. he replied, 'a republic, if you can keep it' they knew what could happen if the state of the people deteriorated to the degree that it has. clearly, we have failed to keep the republic. not you and me, not millions of people who are trying to work and pay their way through life and thus are too busy to become the derelicts and rabble who try to tear it down. sadly, the majority of nominally decent people are paralyzed by fear and the belief that there is nothing they can do. they have seen the republic fail, and most are resigned to their fate. so, what would do if you were made king tomorrow and told to clean up the mess. let's say you are jehu, so you know you are accountable to the one who appointed you, so you can't just do as you please. you have to do what is right, and what works. i confess i would be tempted to try to leave things much as they are, while applying a few fixes. it might be possible - some things like clearly defining the constitution for the truly stupid or those who deliberately misinterpret it, then make it act of treason to attempt in any way (by legislative, judicial, or executive branch) to subvert it. if you could prosecute a judge for an unconstitutional ruling or a member of congress for introducing an unconstitutional bill, it probably wouldn't happen very often. making it unlawful for a person to subsist at the expense of others without their consent (there goes the welfare state) would eliminate those who vote for such politicians. possible? perhaps. you might even buy another century or two in that way. but... a few things - one is interesting for not at all certain, the other two are probably not negotiable. first, many people on the leading edge of, let us say, revolutionary reform, believe that self-government is just not viable in the long term. i know you have some ideas in that direction - that it only works for small groups of people with limited needs, say a tribe or village, maybe a very, very small country. i'm inclined to agree. some who do not believe it can work, are in favor of a monarchy of some sort. certainly, with the right checks and balances (the king's power limited by a constitution and the power of a peerage wielding power - political, economic, and even military - to overcome the king, if necessary). i would say that making that work would also be a neat trick. as for the others, a patriarchal ethnostate is probably essential. not to say that racial and ethnic variety is intolerable, but there has to be some sort of standard, and those not of the ruling class must assimilate to the degree necessary for a harmonious society. and finally, citizenship should be earned, and not easily. being born in the country, even to parents who are citizens, should not be enough. that should convey the right to live here, work, and participate all activities except politics. only those who seek and earn citizenship should be allowed to determine the destiny of the nation. this, more than anything, would provide a chance for long-term survival. Ishmael Well, I don't see any possibility of a political solution. The The massive influx of foreigners, which continues unabated, along with the rot already present in the population, assures that the representative republic will before long be nothing more than a meaningless concept. The charges have been set and the fuse is burning. Even if we have another four or eight years before the enemy assumes complete control again, it only delays the inevitable. So, one way or another, the republic is finished. If it could be reformed, substantial modifications would be needed. To begin, allowing all citizens to vote and hold office could no longer be practiced. That might work if the population (or even a substantial part of it) became intelligent and responsible. That is not going to happen in any case. Thus, control of the nation would have to be placed in the hands of those who are capable of governing and willing to do so properly. I would suggest in that case, a multi-tiered citizenship, with the right to govern, through voting and occupying elected or appointed office, limited to a class of well qualified citizens. Others would have all the other rights (equal opportunity, justice, etc.) but would have no ability to participate in governing. Citizenship would be available to all who are born to parents who already citizens of some sort (let us classify them as citizens, residents, and aliens). They could earn citizenship through a prescribed process, for example: => Education, including an understanding of the constitution, history, and other useful subjects. => Military service for men (since a return to a substantially patriarchal society is necessary, another sort of service would be available for women. It is possible they could fill some pseudo- or para-military role for this purpose) => Possibly some additional indoctrination to ensure an understanding of the responsibilities of being a citizen. => An oath of allegiance to the nation. Assuming this could be set up, maintaining it would not be easy. Since the constitution would have to be revised in any case, it might be prudent to write into it some degree of self- preservation, namely that attempted subversion by any means, including and especially attempts by legislators to change it by law, or by judges to redefine it, would punished as severely as any other act of treason. A new government should be minimalist in scope - only the functions originally intended (military defense, some level of federal law enforcement directed primarily at external threats, border control, and a few essential things that can not be done at the state level) would be performed by the central government. Education, health care, and other services that have been ruined by government interference would be left to the states, as originally intended. Essentially, then, this would return the nation to it originally intended state, while removing, or at least greatly reducing, the opportunities for corruption which have brought us to this state. As we both seem to agree, a patriarchal monoculture is essential. While no person should be deprived of human rights because of race, sex, religion or anything else, a harmonious society is necessary for survival, and a philosophical assimilation is possible without concern for what people look like or what they think about anything other than their responsibilities as a citizen and respecting their fellow human beings. As for other forms of government, it has been said that republics are the worst type of government except for all the others. They are unfortunately difficult to maintain in good working order. It has also been suggested that the best government would be that of a benevolent dictator. Sadly, those are also rather difficult to come by. A constitutional monarchy of the right type might be a good second choice, particularly with a king held in check by a group of powerful vassals who can prevent tyranny from occurring, but those who can prevent such a thing could also become a party to it. I rather suspect that would be quite difficult to implement and make it work. Ishmael Tue 09 Nov 2021 08:04:29 PM CST Jessica just called. Frank had gone to see the doctor about a week ago, and she said he never came home. He passed away last night. I think sometimes I envy him, but there's something about seeing how this goes up close. I'm going up for the funeral if I can find someone to make the trip with me. I don't feel comfortable driving any great distance alone Here are a few notes I had been working on. I guess I'll carry on. Not that I'm fooling anyone, even myself. Our Creator will decide all things, and that is that. The reason we discuss these things among ourselves is that we do not know what those decisions will be. It may be that we have some part to play in reversing the decline of our nation, and that it is destined to continue for a time in some form. If that is the case, we are obliged to do what we can, and pray for the wisdom to know if, when, and how to act. NOTES ======================================== Cultural Realignment There are certainly solutions to the problems humanity faces, but if we were inclined to implement them we most likely would not be in this situation. However, given sufficient resources and time, here are some possible ameliorations. 1. A cultural realignment which restores the healthy societal attitudes of past times. It should be noted that this does not assume that either humanity as a whole, or American society (with which we are most concerned here) has ever been perfect. It has, however, been much better in the past and any return to the values of earlier times would be a good thing. It has been observed by some people I consider reasonably wise that the evils of our time (abortion, sexual deviancy, drug use, and many other bad behaviors) will not be remedied by laws, but by changes in the way people think about them. A healthy society will not do these things (to any significant degree) whether they are legal or not. And indeed, changes (for the worse) in how people perceive them is how we got here. And those changes did not happen by accident. Campaigns by those interested in effecting these changes infected all of the institutions (educational, government, entertainment, and government at all levels) which determine the course of societal evolution. And that work was paid for, sometimes by wealthy people (individually or in groups) and by foreign governments who wished to weaken this country. So, it should be possible to reverse the damage in the same way. A great deal of money would be needed, and some coherent strategy would be required, with capable leadership and vision. Appendix D contains some ideas about this. 2. A solution which begins the healing process without breaking up the country (e.g. secession, which would never happen in any case) and would not be a good thing if it did. However, as noted previously, autonomous states which controlled certain aspects of societal behavior within their own borders, could provide some relief from the decay, while providing a refuge for those in other states which will not reform. While I believe this might be possible to some degree, it would be very difficult and probably messy at times. Nevertheless, it is a worthy objective as, even in a perfect world, it restores the original intent of the republic. The reformed states would be more successful while those which forgo reform would fail, without burdening the other states (by extracting financial resources from them as can be done now). 3. A solution which might be the most feasible, and ultimately effective, would be based loosely on a concept often present in dystopian tales. This posits the idea of a group (or multiple groups) of people who refuse to be part of the failing society, and find safe places to live outside (usually depicted as living a primitive existence rural locations while the oppressed live in cities) They give up some of the comforts of being part of 'the system', such as readily available food and shelter, but are free to live as they see fit. Because of their small size and the ability to build them in an incremental and stealthy manner (i.e., they are not noticed until it is too late to do anything about them) they are also the easiest to implement. There are many instances of this in science fiction, but for our purposes the best example is the Fremen society of Frank Herbert's Dune novels. I will discuss these in more depth in Appendix D. cultural restoration ======================================== autonomous states ======================================== sietches ======================================== Essay 1 - external threats (islam, china) Essay 2 - morality and killing in a just cause |
|