Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 17:05:00
From: Martin Lindstedt (mlindste@clandjop.com
Organization: Outpost of Freedom
To: OutPost of Freedom mail list (outpostoffreedom@illusions.com)
Subject: Re: What form of government should we take - after the 
downfall of  the existing?
Reply-To: OutPostofFreedom@illusions.com

================================
  OutPost of Freedom mail-list
================================
Re: What form of government should we take -- after the 
downfall of the existing?
December 27, 1997
Martin Lindstedt

It is refreshing, after having to have slogged in the trenches with the true-believers and mid-management baal-priesthood of the CONstitutionalidolators, to have posed a philosophical query pointed towards a practical question, i.e., What form of government should we take -- after the downfall of the existing [form of government]? Gary has opened up a new front for argumentation.

I will refrain from answering this philosophical question aimed towards the practical realpolitic based on the premises that there will not be enough people surviving total nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare to form other than wandering bands based upon kinship or that the survivors will have any choice in the matter of government other than obeying the local clan headman absolutely. The underlying premises underneath Gary's question are that there are enough people surviving the coming collapse such that the question of their governance is one of choice, even if driven by necessity.

Rather than force a historical interpretation onto a given situation, it is better to see the given situation as it really is, and posit a likely scenario based upon a linear analysis of the likely future, and THEN cast for a historical similarity. The preferred methodology of the patriot movement too often is to always first consult the sacred innards of the beast of 1787. This is not a new situation -- during the last days of Republican Rome the mythology of the driving out of the kings and the founding of their republic was continually invoked, hence the symbology of the younger Brutus murdering Caesar.

Rather than a collection of differing states forming together an infant nation-state for mutual protection from external threat, today's situation is of a decaying multi-ethnic empire falling apart because it cannot face its true nature. It has no national goals other than those petty selfish interests of its decaying ruling elites. Hard work and responsibility are punished by enslaving those necessary qualities to the service, not of those who made advancement possible, but to the feeding of the idle and improvident to advance the short-term interests of the ruling parasites and predators. An overt display by the ruling elites of this reality would provoke rebellion; hence the necessity for a cloaking device such as 'law' or CONstitution, concealing the rapacity of the decayed elites under a gloss of legitimacy. Strip away the legitimacy; ruling parasites die wriggling under peasant pitchforks.

Since maintaining the facade is necessary for their continued survival and rule, children of the lower classes are of course are indoctrinated to call slavery 'freedom.' But sooner or later, as the percentage of wastrels, fools, degenerates -- what Lothrup Stoddard called the under-man -- increases in both the mass and at the top of the social order, the civilization collapses in an orgy of revolt, civil warfare, and chaos as each person and tribe is fighting for survival. The fabric of civilization is torn apart, beyond repair.

.

The fact of this collapse is easily discernible to anyone who reads a newspaper. Seemingly random acts of desperate violence are common-place today. Look at the shootings at the government- indoctrination centers (schools) and post offices. Look at the increased crowding of the prisons. Not for people who have committed acts of violence against other individuals, but for a number of political crimes against the authority of a corrupt state. Observe the increased numbers of policemen upon the public thoroughfares. Notice the demeanor of these knuckle-dragging goons and the smirk on their faces when confronting their victims. Also notice how these cowardly thugs no longer dare stop even an elderly female without having at least an additional squad car as backup. Analyze your true feelings when you see a victim stopped by these goons. Every single one of us are thankful that we are not being harassed by these police thugs, and even the bravest and most militant of us let out our breath in a sigh of relief when we pass unmolested the scene of the crime.

With this increase in hatred and desperation inherent in a dying social order, it is but a matter of time before the violent destruction of the current government is a given.

.

So when faced with the current unenviable reality, a person of thought asks why it came to be this way. The masses have always instinctively known that any form of government exists to rule 'em and screw 'em anyway, and thus have never been of a mind to closely inquire as to philosophical reasons why. As this current decay has been under the rubric of the CONstitution, the first impulse of the thinking man is to apply his indoctrination and assess that the problem is not in the inherent system but in mankind. Hence the current lapse into unthinking CONstitutionalidolatry, worship of the self-created in the minds of their creators.

This is, of course, folly. Mankind has been in the main, pretty much the same as he has always been. All systems of gubbnmint purport to change his basic nature, and all have been found wanting in ability to do any such thing. All any system of government can do is try to channel human nature into manageable means to increase the ends of that civilization, and not to the benefit of arising special interests. Remember, the law (of God) was made for man, and not man for the law (of man).

Upon putting a share of the blame for social collapse squarely where it belongs, upon so-called governance by CONstitution, it becomes quickly noticeable that such a form of government is conspicuously lacking any meaningful mechanism for the discipline of any regime founded under those fine forms. We are to entrust the government to investigate, prosecute, try, convict, and execute itself? This is an absurdity, as Patrick Henry, the noted Anti-Federalist observed in the Virginia ratifying convention. A government of force masquerading as a government of reason would be imposed on the population.

Self-government will never work with a population and leadership lacking self-discipline. The evil of the CONstitution is that it gave absolute power to government officials without absolute responsibility such as is found in an absolute monarchy or dictatorship. Rather than one distant Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin or Oliver Cromwell or Charles I or Francisco Franco, power is devolved into a corrupt corps of petty local hitlers and charlie mansons. The consequences of this corrupt arrangement could have been easily predicted by the so-called founding fathers who are worshipped by the foolish. They could have brought forward not a worthless warranty, a bill of shoddy goods such as the so-called bill of rights, but rather a Delineation of Responsibilities, failure of which to perform would carry heavy penalties:

Article I:
CONgress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of conscience. Any kongress-kritter who proposes or CONgress which proposes otherwise shall be promptly declared traitor, and forthwith conveyed as the chattel of the aggrieved to kill or enslave according to the whim of the victims.

. . .

Article 10:
The right of the states, or of the people, to secede from this government, upon presenting a bill of grievances and a hearing composed of half the advocates of government and half the seceding body, shall be paramount. Failure to comply with this article shall make this CONstitution null and void.

Yet this deliberate concentration of power, with minimal responsibility was brought about by these so-called founding fathers. Why? All are agreed about the intelligence of this natural aristocracy. So this CONstitutional lack must have been brought about by design.

When one witnesses the historical record of the Alien and Sedition Acts within 10 years of the CONstitution's enactment, the founding of a centralized National Bank of the U.S., the stock of which was to be offered for sale only to the private banksters of the day, one sees the activities of the already corrupt elites of the day, the founding of a New Order of the Ages as witness by the gubbnmint's great seal on the only thing it holds sacred -- its fiat currency. Not to mention the collectivist Supreme Kort rulings by John Marshall, a signer of the CONstitution, who quickly went about destroying the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Goods by his ruling on behalf of the National Bank of the U.S. in McCulloch vs. Maryland; brought about the extra-CONstitutional power of Kort veto of legislation in Marbury v. Madison, and stretching the 'interstate commerce' clause like taffy to encompass gubbnmint control of all economic activity by means of Ogden vs. Gibbons. John Marshall, John Adams' Secretary of State and enforcement hatchetman for the Alien and Sedition acts was the ultimate CONstitutionalist -- ultimate gubbnmint power with minimal accountability for gubbnmint activity. Get the suckers to ratify the CONstitution, then screw 'em over with it but good.

So given the proclivity of the masses to simultaneously worship and mindlessly obey a responsible strong-man and their natural hatred of any form of government, especially government by his thieving fellow common-man; and the realization by the natural elites sobered by the realities of, and under a state of siege, by degenerate democracy posing under color of CONstitution, it is but a matter of time before the moral pretensions of the current state-god are repudiated absolutely. There will be no resurgence of the CONstitution-cult.

.

~~~~~-----~~~~~ .

The surviving tribesmen of Amerika will choose a form of gubbnmint compatible with their culture. The overwhelming majority of them will be ruled by petty despots, even though the form of CONstitution might well be claimed by the future despots much like the Germanic kings claimed the title of Holy Roman Emperor in the Dark Ages.

What difference does it make? After all, the form of gubbnmint under which we labor now is one of petty tyrant, petty criminal, petty parasite claiming that he rules as a politician, judge, policeman or bureaucrat according to the 'will of the people as governed by 'The CONstitution.''

The form of gubbnmint after the coming collapse, for all its faults, will possess the virtue of being honest with the survivors.

--Martin Lindstedt,
Modern Anti-Federalist.

Back to Patrick Henry's Debate Hall?