On March 1, 1997 I posted the following riddle:
Name for me the successful "freedom-fighter" who wrote these words, won his war and then went on to become a leader of his country.
The first person who can name for me the successful "terrorist" and specific document wherein his words are published will win the one print copy of Modern Militiaman (#5) which is printed to give a First Amendment "press" patina on sedition.
The other nine runners-up will receive a formatted copy in either Windows Write 3.1 or Word4Windows 6.0 to print out for themselves.
The _words_ and _phases_ which are underscored have been substituted by myself to help conceal the identity of the author and to illustrate why the Modern Militiaman should have an undying remorseless hatred of today's decayed parasitic criminal elites and their supporters.
To them I say: "Better save the first bullet for yourselves."
--Martin Lindstedt
Managing Editor, The Modern Militiaman.
.
. . . . What can such a man have to tell us; what message can come from him except a message of hate?.Let us try, without fear, favour, or prejudice, to understand the meaning of the awful word "hate" in this connection. You may ask me: Was there "hate" in our actions, in our revolt against _corrupt_ rule of our country, and is that emotion expressed in this book written by the man who bore the burden of responsibility and subsequently wrote about the facts of the revolt?
To such a question the sincere answer is "Yes."
But was it hatred of the _American_ people as such? The sincere answer is "No."
It is axiomatic that those who fight have to hate --something or somebody. And we fought. We had to hate first and foremost, the horrifying, age-old, inexcusable _moral_ defenselessness of our _productive_ people, _slaving_ through centuries, ... to the majority whose _elites_ the _productiveness of the free_ was a standing invitation to _steal from_ them. We had to hate the humiliating disgrace of _the apathy_ of our people. We had to hate -- as any nation worthy of the name must and always must hate -- the rule of the _criminal_ , rule, unjust and unjustifiable, per se, _criminal_ rule . . . in our own country.
And, naturally, we had to hate all those who, equipped with modern arms and the ancient machinery of the gallows, barred the way of _honest_ people to _enjoy the fruits of their own labor_, . . . denied them the means of individual defense, frustrated their efforts for _personal_ independence, and ruthlessly withstood their efforts to _reclaim that which was theirs._
Who will condemn the hatred of evil that springs from the love of what is good and just? Such hatred has been the driving force of progress in the world's history -- "not peace but a sword" in the cause of mankind's advancement. And in our case, such hate has been nothing more and nothing less than a manifestation of that highest human feeling: love. For if you love Freedom, you must hate Slavery; if you love your people, you cannot but hate the _internal_ enemies that compass their destruction; if you love your country, you cannot but hate those who seek to _loot her for their own profit._ Simply put: if you love your mother, would you not hate the man who sought to _rape_ her: would you not hate him and fight him at the cost, if needs be, of your own life?
This is a fundamental human question in the violent and stormy world of today. Let every decent man search his soul and decently answer. Because ultimately the hope of every people lies in the readiness of its sons to stake their lives "for their mothers," for freedom which man loves, against serfdom which man hates and should hate in the name of his love.
. . . And truth compels him to ask himself in the presence of his readers, . . . this testing question: If ever again your people should find themselves in a position like that in which they were when you had to "go underground," to fight, to become a hunted "rebel" -- in such circumstances would you do what you did then?
The answer is definitely: "Yes."
Introduction of "The Revolt" by Menachem Begin, 1951. .I have written this book primarily for my own people, lest the Jew forget again -- as he so disastrously forgot in the past -- this simple truth: that there are things more precious than life, and more horrible than death.
But I have also written this book also for Gentiles, lest they be unwilling to realize, or all to ready to overlook, the fact that out of blood and fire and tears and ashes a new specimen of human being was born, a specimen completely unknown to the world for over eighteen hundred years, "the Fighting Jew." That Jew, whom the world considered dead and buried never to rise again, has risen. For he has learned that "simple truth" of life and death, and he will never again go down to the sides of the pit and vanish from the earth.
Amongst my Gentile readers I wish to address a special message to the British reader. He will read in the following pages some harsh words about some of his rulers, their policies, their agents; and he may feel that some of the strictures fall gratuitously upon himself as citizen voter in a democratic state. It would not be surprising, therefore, if he should feel himself prejudiced both against the author and the book. After all, for years the author fought against the British authorities. He was described by British newspapers, by members of both Houses of Parliament, by Ministers of State, by generals, admirals, bishops, lawyers, and all the other dramatis personae who "give the clues for cheers and boos" to the ordinary citizen -- as "Terrorist Number One" in Eretz Israel, then called Palestine and ruled by the British government.
I will not offend my British reader's ears with a repetition of all the other offensive names which were used by way of enlightening him concerning the author of this book, during the years of the struggle. He can, if he so desires, take his pick from the rich international vocabulary of name-calling. It is only natural, therefore, that many English readers will ask quite sincerely: What can such a man have to tell us; what message can come from him except a message of hate?
Let us try, without fear, favour, or prejudice, to understand the meaning of the awful word "hate" in this connection. You may ask me: Was there "hate" in our actions, in our revolt against British rule of our country, and is that emotion expressed in this book written by the man who bore the burden of responsibility and subsequently wrote about the facts of the revolt?
To such a question the sincere answer is "Yes."
But was it hatred of the British people as such? The sincere answer is "No."
It is axiomatic that those who fight have to hate -- something or somebody. And we fought. We had to hate first and foremost, the horrifying, age-old, inexcusable utter DEFENSELESSNESS of our Jewish people, wandering through millennia, through a cruel world to the majority whose inhabitants the defenselessness of the Jews was a standing invitation to massacre them. We had to hate the humiliating disgrace of homelessness of our people. We had to hate -- as any nation worthy of the name must and always must hate -- the rule of the foreigner, rule, unjust and unjustifiable, per se, foreign rule in the land of our ancestors, in our own country. We had to hate the barring of the gates of our own country to our brethren, trampled and bleeding and crying out for help in a world morally deaf.
And, naturally, we had to hate all those who, equipped with modern arms and the ancient machinery of the gallows, barred the way of our people to physical salvation, denied them the means of individual defense, frustrated their efforts for national independence, and ruthlessly withstood their efforts to regain their national honor and restore their self-respect.
Who will condemn the hatred of evil that springs from the love of what is good and just? Such hatred has been the driving force of progress in the world's history -- "not peace but a sword" in the cause of mankind's advancement. And in our case, such hate has been nothing more and nothing less than a manifestation of that highest human feeling: love. For if you love Freedom, you must hate Slavery; if you love your people, you cannot but hate the foreign enemies that compass their destruction; if you love your country, you cannot but hate those who seek to annex it. Simply put: if you love your mother, would you not hate the man who sought to kill her: would you not hate him and fight him at the cost, if needs be, of your own life?
This is a fundamental human question in the violent and stormy world of today. Let every decent man search his soul and decently answer. Because ultimately the hope of every people lies in the readiness of its sons to stake their lives "for their mothers," for freedom which man loves, against serfdom which man hates and should hate in the name of his love.
The author has not written these preliminary lines in order to make harsh words less galling and bitter truths more palatable. He has written them, as he has written the whole of this book, for the sake of truth. And truth compels him to ask himself in the presence of his readers, Gentile readers and hostile readers, this testing question: If ever again your people should find themselves in a position like that in which they were when you had to "go underground," to fight, to become a hunted "rebel" -- in such circumstances would you do what you did then?
The answer is definitely: "Yes."
The winner was:
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 12:41:18 -0500 (EST) From: ????????@aol.com To: mlindste@clandjop.com Subject: Re: Patriot Riddle - ANSWERED?I recommend that every single militiaman worthy of the name read Menacham Begin's "The Revolt." Menacham Begin was a patriot, and it was understood that his people, the Jews, came first and foremost with him. There was no sacrifice too great, and no moral imperative he would not follow to save his people. There was not an ounce of compromise, not a shred of cowardice in that man, not a single sanctimonious verbal misrepresentation of where he stood. Begin did whatever he had to do to save his people, who were kept from emigration into Palestine by the British while their co-religionists were being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands in Europe. The British wanted to maintain their empire in Palestine by playing the Arabs against the Jews. Eventually, thanks to men like Menacham Begin, the British had to leave once the natives got wise to them and became rambunctious. A process begun in America and ending in Africa.Menachem Begin in "The Revolt."
---------------------
I received four other guesses, three requests for information, and, proving that the audience understood my point thoroughly, three requests to be purged from my e-mailing list. Which I did with extreme prejudice. All three of them were from my "Libertarian" list, and one of them is a law student, which underscores that the decaying and parasitic elites know exactly who they are, and which side they are on.
The guesses, albeit wrong, will receive via e-mail or by floppy an electronic version of Issue #5 because they were runners up by default.
The purpose of my riddle was to show, with the substitution of a few words, the relevancy of Menacham Begin's words from 1951, when he fought an outside enemy -- to today -- when the Modern Militiaman faces an enemy more cruel, more vicious, and more destructive than any foreign invader -- the group of parasites who presently rule over us under facade of democratic government.
There have been, in every civilization, certain internal parasites who have the notion that when outsiders are not available for exploitation, that their own people will do very nicely. So they expand the powers of their office, make more new laws, raise taxes, send the kids of the working poor to die in foreign wars for their own glory, and otherwise drain all the productive efforts of their citizens to their own ends. These illegitimate goals are carried out under color of legitimate "laws" and "taxes"; enforced by police, lawyers, judges, and, in the latter stages, by military force.
These parasites destroy first those outside common society, but eventually the loss of societal vigor is felt throughout the society. Reaction first starts out with random sporadic violence, but as sides are taken, the amount of conflict expands. As there is less and less to steal, and honest men learn they must fight to keep hold of the dwindling means of survival, society degenerates in a crescendo of violence. Eventually the cycle crashes, with the survivors destroying the remaining old, tired, corrupt elites who survived, and the cycle of empire begins anew -- but usually with a new, uncorrupted people because the weakened survivors are fit only to pine for past glories without understanding of the reasons things went so horribly wrong.
Once you know which side you are on, you will understand that which you must do.
That, my comrades, is the deeper meaning to the riddle I posed.
--Martin Lindstedt
Managing Editor, The Modern Militiaman.
.
Back to Modern Militiaman, Issue #5
Back to The Patriot Coalition?
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line
.