“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.

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.

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.

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.

They have to push that no violence for us is ever acceptable because the moment good/righteous patriots realize that in some cases violence is not only justified, it is the most reasonable course of action and only solution, their little ploy/coup/take-over ends immedaitely. Of course people that know that they would lose if it comes to violence would scream - "VIOLENCE IS NEVER THE ANSWER"

This does not mean I am telling you to go do violence, I am only saying you should start to accept the fact that this MAY come to violence, and prepare your mind for it.

>>12886873

>STFU

Yes is it always the /mnr/ jews that have a problem with these posts.. so weird.

>>12886900

>I love this filter announcement. Nails it.