“Rights are not protected by law, but by the citizen’s willingness to use violence against the authorities when they are not respected.”

We often talk about rights. In fact, George Carlin had his own routine concerning rights, where he questioned the legitimacy of rights as an idea and eventually came to the conclusion that either you have all rights, or you have no rights at all. His explanation was mostly aimed at being humorous, but I think it is important to examine what rights are and why we have them, or rather why a government would feel inclined to let us have them. I propose the following answers:

1. Rights are what the citizens of a nation are entitled to as long as they follow the conditions following those rights, namely following the law. It is not laws which dictate what rights citizens have, but their rights which dictate what laws are possible.

1. The reason a government would rather let its citizens have rights is to avoid violent conflict. Violence is undesirable because of the inevitable destruction it brings and so by knowing what the government is not allowed to do unless it wants to face a violent uprising from its citizens, violence can be averted. They are essentially a way to have “civil discourse” if you will.

Let us examine the first answer I give, namely that rights are what citizens are entitled to as long as they follow the law, and that laws are designed around rights, not the other way around. First of all, a citizen who follows the law should expect his rights to be respected. And even if there is an accusation against him, certain rights also protect him in that they allow him to have a proper defense and the such.Without rights, citizens would essentially be constantly at the mercy of their government. They would have no official power to oppose the authority in any way.

However, as long as they have rights and they are respected, then the citizens are capable of defending themselves against potentially abusive authorities.Likewise, this is why it is not laws which should determine what rights you possess,but rather the rights you have which should determine what laws can be created.If laws can change rights, then the government can decide which rights you have and they are essentially meaningless. On the other hand, if laws must be designed around predetermined rights, then the government does not have the power to create laws which violate your rights.

Yet all this is meaningless unless the citizenship is willing to enforce its rights.

So we reach the most important point I am making here, which is the necessity of the citizenship‘s willingness to engage in violence if the government denies its rights.

You see, one must ask himself what forces the government to respect rights in the first place. If they ignore them, if they trample them, what ill will befall them? Who will stop them? The answer here is simple:The citizenship must stop them, and the only means by which they can achieve it is through violence.Some foolish souls may claim that merely electing a new government will change things, but voting is in itself a right and if a government is willing to remove one right, it will not hesitate to remove another.And if one party does not suffer dire consequences for attacking the rights of the citizenship, then the other parties have no incentive to restore those rights. Thus, paradoxically, it is violence which gives rise to rights. And rights arise and are respected in order to avoid violence.

>>12881242

Governments themselves have an incentive to respect rights. As said, violence is destructive and it is far more efficient to arrive at a peaceful solution, which involves respecting the rights of the citizenship. Though it could ignore said rights, this would be at an undesirable cost. Or rather, it should be, which brings me to my ultimate point.

This is why everything is going wrong with the west right now. This is the root cause of all the issues which we are faced with: Governments are not respecting their citizens’ rights, yet these citizens are unwilling to use violence to defend themselves. Rather, they sit back and grumble quietly, telling themselves that it’s preferable to lose those rights than to engage in violence.

It is not.

It is unacceptable for any man who believes that he has any rights to allow these abuses to take place. Though it is important to make sure that rights have been violated before taking action so as to make sure one is righteous, once it is truly determined that a citizen’s rights are not being respected, it is the duty of all to rise up and oppose their government. Those who sit down and begrudgingly accept these repeated outrages are no better than slaves and deserve no better fate than slaves.

And so, remember this, and plan accordingly. Once your government thinks they can take away your rights, it is time to hold on to them as tight as possible with one hand while thrusting your spear with the other. Otherwise, you are nothing but a slave and deserve to be treated as such.

>>12881243

Violence is the pillar on which all societies are built and its repression is tantamount to societal collapse.

For societies to function, there must be a set of agreed upon rules, which we call laws, to govern all individuals which comprise them. Without those rules to abide by, individuals would likely work against each other and societies would collapse. Even assuming the good will of the individuals comprising a society, having laws allows us to determine the point at which a dysfunctional individual must be stopped by force.

Of course, laws are simply words. Spoken words or words on paper, but only words. Laws gain power through their enforcement, and enforcement is only possible through violence or the implied threat of violence. As an example, a man may pay off a speeding ticket because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, but what stops him from deciding he doesn’t feel like paying it is the threat of being forcefully taken to jail. And once in jail, what keeps him behaved is the threat of further confinement, which is achieved through violence. Thus, without violence, laws cannot be enforced. If laws cannot be enforced, the laws mean nothing. If the laws mean nothing, then nothing stops individuals from acting against the well-being of that society. And if nothing stops individuals from acting against the well being of society, then the society will eventually collapse. It will take longer in societies where individuals are responsible, but it will happen eventually. What keeps the predatory, the sociopathic, from gaining full power over individuals aiming to make society function, is the threat of violence against them.

Thus, the notion that “violence is never the answer” is a laughable one.We teach(or rather, our governments teach)our children that violence is wrong, that they must never use it no matter what. The aim of this is to create a society of slaves who will never protect themselves when abused. It is slave morality and we must emancipate ourselves from it.

Yes, violence is acceptable, in certain conditions.It may not be desirable, but it becomes acceptable – nay,necessary– if one hopes to have a complex and functional society. Otherwise, what you have is merely a parody of a society, a human organization which does not work for the good and improvement of humanity, but for the glory of its sociopathic leaders. This, in essence, is the reason behind the west’s continued descent into decadence. If the decent, righteous folks who constitute the majority of mankind refuse to engage in violence, then dysfunctional individuals won’t hesitate to take what they want by force. Over time, this will allow them to gain positions of power where they will weaken the laws even further and allow even more dysfunctionals into positions of power until we reach a point where the common folk are dominated by a handful of psychopaths, refusing to defend themselves as they believe violence is wrong while letting violence be used to dominate them.

Once such a point is reached, the less intelligent brutes will begin using violence not because they want freedom from the dominating castes, but merely because no one is stopping them. The decent folk refuse to use violence to stop them while those in charge don’t care. Worse, those in charge now hesitate to use violence to stop the brutes because it might set a precedent, teach the decent folks that violence is indeed the answer. This is how we wind up with riots all over the place and eventually, either when someone sees an opportunity to seize power or the decent folks finally have enough, civil war. Once the civil war blows over, people with power and the will to enforce laws will create their new state, with new laws, but none can tell if these laws will be the kind which allow a civilized society.

In conclusion, it is my belief that to prevent a total societal failure of the west, it is imperative to teach violence to people again. Teach them how to do it, when to do it, why they should do it.

Remember that it is not a prayer which will keep the darkness at bay, but a sword.

>>12881244

1 Kings 18:40 - And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.

>>12881266

>>12881307

>I guarantee a run with the gop in 2024

I love the retards that just watched the biggest election landslide in history get stolen but still believe voting again in 2024 is the answer.

>>12881358

>It vanished as soon as Biden was installed

>installed

Either way Q was designed to keep us guessing, the mere fact that you said installed shows that it could be either side that installed him. Let's look at it from this POV

The Cabal had the ability to cheat an election in 2016, but they either did not or were unsuccessful.

This leads to two options

A. Ml stopped them from cheating so POTUSDJT could happen

or

B. DJT was part of the deep state plan from the beginning.

Let's for the sake of argument consider option B. The Deep State could not reach their goals in the way needed after the Obama Presidency. Patriots were pissed and the left were not as motivated as they are now. They needed to create a boogeyman to feed to the left that would motivate them to the point of bloodthirst. In comes PDJT. Now, to you and I DJT seemed like an American Loving President, but to the Left he was "literally Hitler." Add to that the events of Jan 6th, and other events leading up and you see that the country is a powder keg of the Deep State design which it appears to giving them exactly what they want. In Chess the further you can think ahead, the more likely you win. If DJT was a Deep State plant designed to bring us to this point, it was a play that would make Spassky and Fischer bow down at it's greatness.

If option A is correct than Biden can be summed up in one simple Q post as following:

Anonymous ID: grTMpzrL No.147446992 📁

Nov 1 2017 00:11:52 (EST)

Note MI has the same SAPs as NSA, CIA etc as designated post 9-11.

Why is this relevant?

=Who can be held hostage and controlled?

CIA thinks its foreign offshore assets are strong enough to defend against the US executive (not accounting for military use on domestic soil).

Why does the Constitution explicitly grant this authority to the President and what is it to prevent?

They knew our agencies would grow in power so much so they could/can hold the executive hostage or engage with bad actors.

Trump nominated someone new to direct every agency but one. He controls the top.

We don't know either way, which brings me back to me original "non-datefag" post. Hope for the best, but prepare vigorously for the worst.

>>12881505

>Funny, your, "sermon," here is pretty much directly opposite of what Jesus taught. Trying to incite violence are you? There can be a time and place for it, but should be avoided if possible. Self defense is one thing, trying to incite others to violence is another.

Funny I have responses to you shills ready to go because you try WWJD the same play everytime

There is no shortage of heresies these days. If you want to adopt some blasphemous, perverted, fun house mirror reflection of Christianity, you will find a veritable buffet of options. You can sift through all the variants and build your own little pet version of the Faith. It’s Ice Cream Social Christianity: make your own sundae! (Or Sunday, as it were.) And, of all the heretical choices, probably the most common – and possibly the most damaging – is what I’ve come to call the Nice Doctrine.

The propagators of the Nice Doctrine can be seen and heard from anytime any Christian takes any bold stance on any cultural issue, or uses harsh language of any kind, or condemns any sinful act, or fights against evil with any force or conviction at all. As soon as he or she stands and says ‘This is wrong, and I will not compromise,’ the heretics swoop in with their trusty mantras. They insist that Jesus was a nice man, and that he never would have done anything to upset people. They say that He came down from Heaven to preach tolerance and acceptance, and He wouldn’t have used words that might lead to hurt feelings. They confidently sermonize about a meek and mild Messiah who was born into this Earthly realm on a mission to spark a constructive dialogue. The believers in Nice Jesus are usually ignorant of Scripture, but they do know that he was ‘friends with prostitutes,’ and once said something about how, like, we shouldn’t get too ticked off about stuff, or whatever. In their minds, he’s essentially a supernatural Cheech Marin.

Read the comments under my previous post about gay rights militants, and you’ll see this heresy illustrated. That post prompted an especially noteworthy email from someone concerned that I’m not being ‘Christlike,’ because I ‘call people names.’ He said, in part: “You aren’t spreading Christianity when you talk like that. The whole message of Jesus was that we should be nice to people because we want them to be nice to us. That’s how we can all be happy. Period. It’s that simple.” Be nice to me, I’ll be nice to you, and we’ll all be happy. This is the ‘whole message’ of Christianity? Really? Jesus Christ preached a Truth no deeper or more complex than a slogan on a poster in a Kindergarten classroom? Really?

A provocative claim, to say the least. I decided to investigate the matter, and sure enough, I found this excerpt from the Sermon on the Mount: “We’re best friends like friends should be. With a great big hug, and a kiss from me to you, won’t you say you love me too?” Actually, wait, sorry, that’s from the original Barney theme song. God help us. We’ve turned the Son of God into a purple dinosaur puppet. There’s no way to be certain, but most theologians believe that, despite popular perception, Christ looked nothing like this. I don’t recognize this Jesus. This moderate. This pacifist. This nice guy.

He’s not the Jesus I read about in the Bible. I read of a strong, manly, stern and bold Savior. Compassionate, yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But not particularly nice.

He condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order.

On one occasion – or at least one recorded occasion – He used violence. This Jesus saw the money changers in the temple and how did He respond? He wasn’t polite about it. I’d even say He was downright intolerant. he fashioned a whip (this is what the lawyers would call ‘premeditation’) and physically drove the merchants away. He turned over the tables and shouted. He caused a scene. [John 2:15]

Assault with a deadly weapon. Vandalism. Disturbing the peace. Worse still, intolerance.

In two words: not nice. Not nice at all. Can you imagine how some moderate, pious, ‘nice’ Christians of today would react to that spectacle in the Temple? Can you envision the proponents of the Nice Doctrine, with their wagging fingers and their passive aggressive sighs? I’m sure they’d send Jesus a patronizing email, perhaps leave a disapproving comment under the news article about the incident, reminding Jesus that Jesus would never do what Jesus just did.

Personally, I’ve studied the New Testament and found not a single instance of Christ calling for a ‘dialogue’ with evil or seeking the middle ground on an issue. I see an absolutist, unafraid of confrontation. I see a man who did not waver or give credence to the other side. I see someone who never once avoided a dispute by saying that He’ll just ‘agree to disagree.’

I see a Christ who calls the Scribes and Pharisees snakes and vipers. He labels them murderers and blind guides, and ridicules them publicly [Matthew 23:33]. He undermines their authority. He insults them. He castigates them. He’s not very nice to them. Jesus rebukes and condemns. In Matthew 18, He utilizes morbid and violent imagery, saying that it would be better to drown in the sea with a stone around your neck than to harm a child. Had our modern politicians been around two thousand years ago, I’m sure they’d go on the cable news shows and shake their heads and insist there’s ‘no place for that kind of language.’ No place for the language of God.

Jesus deliberately did and said things that He knew would upset people. he stirred up division and controversy. He provoked. He didn’t have to break from established customs, but He did. He didn’t have to heal that man’s hand on the Sabbath, knowing how it would disturb others and cause them immense irritation, but He did, and He did so with ‘anger’ [Mark 3:5]. He could have gone with the flow a little bit. He could have chilled out and let bygones be bygones, but He didn’t. he would have been diplomatic, but He wasn’t.

He could have told everyone to relax, but instead He made them uncomfortable. He could have put them at ease, but He chose to put them on edge.

He convinced the mob not to stone the adulterer [John 8], and you’ll notice that He then turned to her and told her to stop sinning. Indeed, never once did He encounter sin and corruption and say: “Hey, do your thang, homies. Just have fun. YOLO!” The followers of the Nice Jesus love to quote the ‘throw the first stone’ verse – and for good reason, it’s a beautiful and compelling story – but you rarely hear mention of the exchange that occurs just a few sentences later, in that very same chapter. In John 8:44, Jesus rebukes unbelieving Jews and calls them ‘sons of the Devil.’

Wow. That wasn’t nice, Jesus.

>>12881533

>>12881528

Didn’t anyone ever tell you that you can catch more flies with honey, Jesus? Of course, you’d catch even more flies with a mound of garbage, so maybe ‘catching flies’ isn’t the point. While we’re often reminded that Jesus said, ‘live by the sword, die by the sword,’ we seem to ignore his other sword references. Like when he told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword [Luke 22], or when He said that He ‘didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword’ [Matthew 10]. Now, it’s true that He is God and we are not. Jesus can say whatever He wants to say. But we are called to be like Christ, which begs the question: what is Christ like? Well, He is, among other things, uncompromising. He is intolerant of evil. He is disruptive. He is sometimes harsh. He is sometimes impolite. He is sometimes angry. He is always loving. Christ was not and is not a cosmic guidance counselor, and He is not mankind’s best friends, nor did He call us to be. He made dogs for that role – our destiny is more substantial, and our path to it is far more challenging and dangerous. And nice?

Wheredoes nice factor into this? Nice: affable, peachy, swell.

Nice has nothing to do with Christianity. I’ve got nothing against nice – nice is nice – but even serial killers can be nice to people. They generally are exceptionally affable, except when they’re murdering. That means they’re nice to, like, 97 or 98 percent of everyone they meet. I guess they’re following Christ almost all of the time, right? And tolerance? Tolerance is easy. Any coward can learn to tolerate something. Tolerance is inaction; intolerance is action. We are called to refuse to tolerate evil. We are called to get angry at it and actively work to destroy it. Who’d have guess it – anger is far more godly than tolerance ever could be.

Obviously I’m not suggesting that anger is automatically, or even usually, justified. Christ exhibited righteous anger; righteous anger is the sort of anger that naturally fills our souls when we confront the depths of depravity and sin. It is wrong to seethe with rage because someone cut us off in traffic or gossips about us behind our back. but it is also wrong to feel no anger when babies are murdered and the institution of the family is undermined and attacked. Anger is good when it is directed at things that offend not us, but God. Just as Christ’s intolerance, like the intolerance we’re commanded to have, stems from a desire to save souls and defend Truth.

Even when we have righteous anger, we do not have carte blanche to act on it in anyway we please. But, according to the Bible, there are times to use strong language, there are times to cause a scene, there are times to hurt people’s feelings, and there are times when we might need to use physical force. Jesus told us to turn the other cheek when we are personally attacked; He never told us to turn our backs entirely and let lies spread and evil grow.

So, enough with the niceties.

Christians in this country sound too similar to the Golden Girls song, and not enough like the Battle Hymn of the Republic. There’s too much ‘thank you for being a friend,’ and not enough ‘lightening from His terrible swift sword.’ We’re all hugging and singing Kumbaya, when we should be marching and shouting Hallelujah. We’re nice Christians with our nice Jesus, and we are trampled on without protest.

Enough, already.

I think it’s time that Christianity regain its fighting spirit; the spirit of Christ. I think it’s time we ask that question: ‘What would Jesus do?’ And I think it’s time we answer it truthfully: Jesus would flip tables and yell. Maybe we ought to follow suit.

1 Kings 18:40 - And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.

>>12881586

>Not particularly nice? So you feel that you can judge God? Let me know how that works out for you.

Your pilpul has failed, run back to the synagouge.

>>12881623

>Why is it, that every time you clowns can't refute a solid argument, you revert to calling people Jews?

Why is it that you are a Jew and think that you fool anyone. Your tactics are well known and blatantly obvious. Only a Jew shill would take those 3 posts and strawman reduce them to

>Not particularly nice? So you feel that you can judge God? Let me know how that works out for you

Now, like I said, run your ass back to the Synagogue, IP hop, and try a different entry point. This one is shut to you.

>>12881635

>people have a huge problem of INDIVIDUAL self preservation,

Letting genocidal communist regimes take over the country is the opposite of self-preservation.

>>12881661

>KEK. So, your argument is that I am a Jew because YOU say I am. Gotcha. You should try for a nobel prize, you're a genius.

And your argument is that you are not a Jew because you say you are not when your words/evidence point to the opposite. And yes, I am a genius.

>>12881681

> What do you believe in? Allah?

And the Jew shows himself. Next will you talk about my top quality Persian rugs. Like I said, your tactics are played the fuck out, boring and obvious. Move along kikel.

>>12881681

> I am a believer in the Christ

>>12881700

>And the Jew shows himself. Next will you talk about my top quality Persian rugs. Like I said, your tactics are played the fuck out, boring and obvious. Move along kikel.

Also, to help you blend in better next time Mr. Moshe, Christians do not call Jesus "The Christ", he is just Christ.

You've made this mistake before in the past as wellWNB

>>12881755

>Wow, so now you're an expert on Christians now too huh? Just so you know, Christ is a title, not His name. Think about it.

I'm well aware WNB. Which is why he is referred to as Jesus Christ, not Jesus The Christ. You failed, kikel.

>>12881794

> I don't think

You should just stop there, it is the only truthful statement you have made thus far. Kikel WNB, now rung back to the synagogue aka https://8kun.top/midnightriders/catalog.html

>>12881852

>Why don't you go give moloch a big kiss, or ishtar, or whatever pagan god you worship.

>failing so hard, your rabbi is ashamed.

A demonstration of Jewish pilpul in action.

>>12881528

>>12881586

>Not particularly nice? So you feel that you can judge God? Let me know how that works out for you.

>>12881595

>Your pilpul has failed, run back to the synagouge.

>>12881623

>Why is it, that every time you clowns can't refute a solid argument, you revert to calling people Jews? I'm not Jewish, at least not ethnically, as far as I know, so why do you ALWAYS toss that out like some kind of condemnation even though you have no substantive evidence to back it up?

>>12881643

>>Why is it, that every time you clowns can't refute a solid argument, you revert to calling people Jews?

>Why is it that you are a Jew and think that you fool anyone. Your tactics are well known and blatantly obvious. Only a Jew shill would take those 3 posts and strawman reduce them to

>>Not particularly nice? So you feel that you can judge God? Let me know how that works out for you

>Now, like I said, run your ass back to the Synagogue, IP hop, and try a different entry point. This one is shut to you.

>>12881661

>KEK. So, your argument is that I am a Jew because YOU say I am. Gotcha. You should try for a nobel prize, you're a genius.

>>12881668

>And your argument is that you are not a Jew because you say you are not when your words/evidence point to the opposite. And yes, I am a genius.

>>12881681

>KEK. I don't give a rats ass what you think I am, but I know what I am, I am a believer in the Christ. What do you believe in? Allah?

>>12881700

>And the Jew shows himself. Next will you talk about my top quality Persian rugs. Like I said, your tactics are played the fuck out, boring and obvious. Move along kikel.

>>12881740

>Also, to help you blend in better next time Mr. Moshe, Christians do not call Jesus "The Christ", he is just Christ.

>You've made this mistake before in the past as wellWNB

>>12881755

>Wow, so now you're an expert on Christians now too huh? Just so you know, Christ is a title, not His name. Think about it.

>>12881772

>I'm well aware WNB. Which is why he is referred to as Jesus Christ, not Jesus The Christ. You failed, kikel.

>>12881794

>Well, you will find out one day, but if you keep up your current attitude, I don't think the meeting will go well for you.

>>12881821

>You should just stop there, it is the only truthful statement you have made thus far. Kikel WNB, now rung back to the synagogue aka https://8kun.top/midnightriders/catalog.html

>>12881852

>I have news for you shill, I don't take orders from you. Why don't you go give moloch a big kiss, or ishtar, or whatever pagan god you worship. They won't help you when the time comes.

>>12881875

>>Why don't you go give moloch a big kiss, or ishtar, or whatever pagan god you worship.

>>failing so hard, your rabbi is ashamed.

>>12881887

>I'm not Jewish, but whatever, believe what you want, I don't care.

Yes, you certainly do. As demonstrated.

>>12881917

>>12881942

>KEK. You sure have some funny logic. So, because I responded to your stupidity, it PROVES I am Jewish? Okay Sherlock, whatever you say.

That you respond, no

How you respond, yes.

>>12881961

>And how exactly did I respond in your view?

As you always do.