Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Alternative History


When I saw this item at the Cliffs, it struck me that things in America might have been very different....

What if folks in the Forties had understood that whenever you cede your moral and political authority to others, they never, ever give it back?

Let's see who has the courage to think through an alternative history of post-1945 America, in which Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP strategists say:

"You know, this long-term litigation campaign culminating in the Supreme Court will likely succeed in the short run, but what kind of Federal Frankenstein will be created as a result? And more importantly, why do we think that this Federal monster won't wind up being even more damaging to our community in the long run than the vilest Kleagle imaginable?"

"What if, instead of asking the Supreme Court to abolish the twin freedoms of private property rights and association, we just

- kill the racist bastards that need killing,
- burn or otherwise destroy the property of lesser offenders,
- socially shun petty bigots, and

simply resolve the racism issue ourselves?"

Why do we think a bunch of white folks in funny black gowns can handle our problems better than the free black men and women on the scene where this behavior is happening? Why do we think we have to ask a bunch of white folks for permission to be free? Are you saying that we don't know or can't find out where each of those racist bastards lives and eats and drinks? Come on....don't be silly."

Today, we have a whole bunch of trained and ready to go veterans. They just got done fighting against racist totalitarians -- they know what to do to such vermin. And I am not saying that the pacifists, the civil disobedients, and the "let the system work" folks amongst us should abandon their efforts. But I am telling you, with God as my witness -- if we just act like 'good colored people' and let the white folks 'fix' this problem through the courts, we will wind up, fifty years down the road, in one hell of a lot worse shape than if we just convince everybody through direct action that it's really best to be nice to others in all affairs. Especially black folks."


If you have the stomach for it, think about where this country will likely be, in terms of race relations, twenty years from now.

Those of all races, creeds, religions, and ethnicities who survive the upcoming Cataclysm will rue the strategic decisions made by the black freedom fighters back in the Forties.

Mark my words.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Defender said...

Just watched the new video featuring Suzette Kelo, whose home was seized by New Haven, CT, so an office park could be built to bring in more taxes. The Supreme Court sided with the city 5-4.
The developer never even built the thing.
Included is the story of an East Lansing MI woman whose well-tended apartment buildings are in a declared "blight zone." The city may try to claim them under eminent domain. She counters with a tour of the zone showing abandoned CITY-OWNED buildings falling down.
And that's just one other example.
It may have to get up close and personal.

December 4, 2010 at 6:17 PM  
Blogger Pat H. said...

I'd read those comments by Marshall about a decade ago, essentially the NAACP thugs wore him down, and he brought the infamous lawsuits over segregated businesses.

Black owned and run businesses were devastated.

December 4, 2010 at 6:54 PM  
Blogger Dedicated_Dad said...

Fred reed - though I don't always agree with him on everything-is right often enough that I'm always pleased to find a new post on his site.

His "Letter From a Dead Racist" is IMHO one of his best. www.fredoneverything.net/Klan.shtml

Naturally it produced the obligatory cries from the usual suspects, who are utterly incapable of recognizing irony and parody even when it smacks them on the nose like a puppy who just soiled his bed.

Now that I mention it, soiling their own bed is a pretty apt description of their usual antics, but I digress...

They've pretty well succeeded in soiling *ALL* our beds at this point, one can only pray that G*d will grant us the undeserved grace to turn it around before the damage is irrevocable...

DD

December 4, 2010 at 7:05 PM  
Blogger Dedicated_Dad said...

Defender: see also the razing of the last remaining "beach community" on Long Island -a tradition going back over a century - to enable a "park" even though the adjoining property has been city-owned and an utter horror for decades.

It's not that anyone REALLY needs the property, or that the residents have done anything wrong, it's simple class-warfare. The indolent animals who surround the community would rather see it destroyed than allow the reminder of what THEIR area could be if only they had the gumption to clean it up.

Kelo was never about the development, it was about the final and utter destruction of what little remained of true property rights. The"decision"wad a forgone conclusion, as anyone with eyes could see from the beginning.

God help us, and God save our Republic!

December 4, 2010 at 7:13 PM  
Blogger sofa said...

Why not these guys 50 years ago?
Why not current folks today?
.

December 4, 2010 at 8:13 PM  
Anonymous EJR914 said...

The real hi-jacking of the country occurred during Reconstruction with the addition of the 14th amendment. It abolished the State's sovereignty, rights, and power, and took away State citizens, and at the same time made all of us National citizens. That's when all this trouble started. We didn't need the Civil War to erase slavery, it would have happened sooner or later, anyway.

The Constitutionality of Reconstruction has never been argued in the Supreme Court. When they tried to, Congress passed a law that stripped away the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to weigh the Constitutionality of Reconstruction.

See: Georgia Vs. Stanton: Court ruled that just because an Act of Congress would "annul and totally abolish the existing State of Georgia, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court." Further stating that the matter was a political question that did not affect personal or property rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Stanton

Ex Parte McCardle: The court accepted jurisdiction under the Act of 1867 and the case was argued. Before the Court could render a judgment Congress enacted a law that repealed the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Act of 1867 and prohibited from proceeding on any appeals already before it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_McCardle

Ex Parte Yerger: Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Senate introduced a bill "...explicitly prohibiting the Supreme Court from considering any case which involved validity of the Reconstruction Acts, followed by another, still more radical, prohibiting the judicial review of any Act of Congress... Yerger on being turned over to the civil authorities withdrew his petition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Yerger

December 4, 2010 at 9:57 PM  
Blogger Sean D Sorrentino said...

So what you are saying is that the real reason the Communists got involved in civil rights wasn't to help the blacks (which is a moral act) but to help push the litigation towards undermining free association and property rights?

December 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

"if we just convince everybody through direct action"

Force.

Imposing good behavior by force and violence.

This is an incredibly stupid thing for you to suggest, and I would have expected better from you.

Ethics matter when and only when they are freely chosen. If I engage in "good" behavior because I have absolutely no choice in the matter, that takes all the virtue right out of it, and probably makes it _harder_ to choose virtue when I _do_ have a choice - because I have no experience even considering ethical questions. It devalues virtue. It makes the "good" behavior empty and meaningless. Goodness is a choice.

Imposing certain behavior by government fiat, backed by law enforcement, or by threats of low-level personal violence ... where in the world do you get the idea there is any meaningful difference?

Also

"- kill the racist bastards that need killing,
- burn or otherwise destroy the property of lesser offenders,"

This wasn't tried because it would have resulted in a de facto war of extermination that the blacks would have lost, and they knew it. Attitudes today are NOT what they were then. There has been an extensive and largely successful effort to propagandize [I use that verb in a neutral sense, not intending positive or negative connotations] those attitudes out of existence. That effort largely succeeded. Using common attitudes today as a premise for choices made then is nonsensical.

And, incidentally, even as a child of the modern age, I absolutely insist upon the right to be a damn dirty racist and to refuse to enter into freely chosen interactions with whoever I choose if I so choose, and if you deny me that right you are no better than the totalitarians in DC you claim to be opposing. Freedom of association is in the Constitution. Freedom from racism is not. There are reasons for that.

This is really one of the stupidest things I've seen on this site, and it (unfortunately) really stands out in that regard.

December 5, 2010 at 12:22 AM  
Anonymous Witchwood said...

It goes without saying that the Klan is a despicable organization, but I would caution anyone who thinks any sort of alliance with blacks can be had. Blacks today are not only as free as they've ever been, but they are given (and staunchly defend) unfair advantages in the workplace and deference bordering on fealty in social situations.

What is the end result of all these advantages? This.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the drive to accumulate as many allies as possible for the coming struggle. But it's a mistake to woo people who were never on your side to begin with. It's no coincidence that blacks are virtually non-existent in the militia movement. The ugly truth is that the true number of blacks who agree with patriots enough take up the rifle are vanishingly small.

- kill the racist bastards that need killing,
- burn or otherwise destroy the property of lesser offenders


So Marshall is for the summary execution of anyone found guilty of the grave sin of "racism." Naturally, he and his get to decide exactly how that word is defined. Perhaps lack of reparation for slavery is "racist"; perhaps standing against affirmative action is "racist." And you want to leave it up to him to decide who lives and who dies?

Today, we have a whole bunch of trained and ready to go veterans. They just got done fighting against racist totalitarians -- they know what to do to such vermin.

If he's referring to WWII veterans, most of them didn't care for blacks much either. Cont'd...

December 5, 2010 at 12:56 AM  
Anonymous Witchwood said...

If you have the stomach for it, think about where this country will likely be, in terms of race relations, twenty years from now.

In my opinion, we don't need to fast-forward more than 10 years. That's how much time I give the United States. 10 years, maximum. Considering the amount of anti-white racism currently being exhibited by nonwhites (and with impunity and even encouragement, I might add) I'd say that we can kiss any notion of a multi-racial utopia goodbye.

Those of all races, creeds, religions, and ethnicities who survive the upcoming Cataclysm will rue the strategic decisions made by the black freedom fighters back in the Forties.

True. But keep in mind that while those fighters may have been correct, they were never fighting for the rights of all, but for their own tribe. We would do well to do the same.

December 5, 2010 at 1:02 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Folks: Metaphor, perhaps?

Also, with all due respect, force -- killing, burning, exploding -- or the credible threat thereof is the ultimate arbiter of philosophical contests.

If the "convince them through reason only" crowd thinks otherwise, they are advocating a first in human affairs.

Force/threat thereof + reason + ethics = good

Force/threat thereof + unreason + wrong ethics = bad

Finally, don't mistake anything in this piece supporting dilution of the intertwined basic individual human rights of speech, association, property, and armed self-defense.

December 5, 2010 at 2:10 AM  
Anonymous Justin said...

I share many views expressed in these comments, but appreciate what you're getting at here, CA.

The key to solving problems is NOT EVER more and more legislation, but personal responsibility and action. The solution to domestic violence, for example, is not police and federal funding, but male relatives and baseball bats. Or maybe a fed up lady and a gun in some circumstances.

Largely though, this is truth:

"Also, with all due respect, force -- killing, burning, exploding -- or the credible threat thereof is the ultimate arbiter of philosophical contests.

If the "convince them through reason only" crowd thinks otherwise, they are advocating a first in human affairs."

As much as I don't want to be a "might makes right" person, this is the pattern of human affairs. Ask yourself who wrote the history of the so-called "Civil" War? WW1? WW2? The Revolution? The victors, of course. If Japan would have recovered from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Axis won, those bombings would've resulted in war crimes convictions. Likewise Dresden.

This was a thought provoking post, and for that, I congratulate you, CA. WRSA has become -by far- my most visited site. Keep it up.

Sean Sorrentino-
"So what you are saying is that the real reason the Communists got involved in civil rights wasn't to help the blacks..."

The real reason the Communists got involved in Civil Rights was to increase their base and strength. It was opportunism, pragmatic and practical. Besides, communism is all about equality- making the people equally poor and miserable.

Using history as a metric, the only civil right under communism is the right to produce for the state, and then die. Everything else can and has historically been taken from citizens at the ruling class' whim. Communism has no interest in true equality and the freedom to prosper. That is, of course, if one takes communists' deeds once in power as proof, and not their words.

Justin

December 6, 2010 at 6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The elites will always find a reason to end your freedoms. After all what matter freedom of association and private property rights to a free people compared to the glories of diversity as defined by your betters?

December 7, 2010 at 6:47 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home