The Irish Savant : When is violent resistance justified?

On the barricades on the Rue Soufflot, Paris, 25 June 1848

When is violent resistance justified?

The Irish Savant
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2020/02/when-is-violent-resistance-justified.html

Friday, 14 February 2020

Allow me to paint you a scenario and at the end I'll ask if you a question on it.
There's this powerful prosperous country, operating under the rule of Constitutional Law and a highly-representative form of democratic politics. It's 90% mono-racial with the races largely keeping to themselves in relative harmony. It has a strong sense of nationhood, taking pride in its history and accomplishments. But over time a new race begins to appear in ever-greater numbers, Almost indistinguishable from the majority, this race ostensibly 'comes in peace' but secretly plans to destroy this polity with the aid of treacherous, venal and beguiled natives. The plot is all too successful and eventually the country's traditional people find themselves staring into the abyss of minority status having been manoeuvred into the loss of their political, judicial and currency systems, their borders, media, the right to self-segregate. For all practical purposes they've lost the right of redress through peaceful political means. To crown it all they face a determined attack on their Constitutional right to defend themselves against (increasingly likely) armed attack.

So my question is this: In such a set of circumstances would the traditional population have the right to engage in armed resistance against their Government?

Now we all know what I'm talking about here and some may see my characterisation as exaggerated. They'll say that Americans had the voting power to have blocked this at any time. Well the right to vote in itself conveys little power as we saw with the old Soviet block where the whole adult population was enfranchised. Even 'opposition' candidates and parties were tolerated. But only if they operated within a narrow policy spectrum. Same with America. Just ask Pat Buchanan what happens when you stray off the park. You don't have to send troublesome opponents to Siberia or shoot them in order to neutralise them.

Real democratic politics can operate only in the context of balanced access by competing interests to the organs of information. Or propaganda if you will. These include education and the full spectrum of news and entertainment. If these become dominated by one faction democratic decisions get based on partial and tendentious information, which in turn leads to tainted voting outcomes. I'm only speculating here but if completely free and open elections were held today in North Korea Dear Leader would probably get elected despite the unimaginable suffering he's imposed on his unfortunate subjects. And if I'm right they'd have done it because they've been marinated in a propaganda fantasy from the day they were born. How different is that from America today? Remember in even in the most advanced democracies most people get their news and opinion from mainstream media. Those that dig deeper in a sceptical way account for but a small minority.

So what about Constitutional safeguards? Well they're only as good as the courts that administer them. And if the courts rule that the framers of the American Constitution deemed same-sex marriage a fundamental right then you know you've lost the game. In fact in most White countries today courts legislate from the bench in flagrant violation of Constitutional separation of powers. And in America the courts are almost uniformly hostile to the interests of straight, White Christian males and the traditional family. Although there has been some push-back under Trump the court system today remains Occupied Territory.

Consider the three most important pieces of legislation supporting the project to dispossess American Whites. The stated objective of Brown v. Board of Education was to end segregated education - despite the fact that this clearly was not prohibited by the Constitution. Nonetheless, in the most flagrant violation of legal ethics the 'renowned' Justice Felix Frankfurter and fellow Jew Philip Elman, who was presenting the case to the SCOTUS!, worked together and connived to get the legislation passed. As Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton show in The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy the decision had no basis in Constitutional Law. Even the New York Slimes admitted it was “A Sociological Decision: Court Founded Its Segregation Ruling on Hearts and Minds Rather Than Laws.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodation and private employment but only in under very specific conditions. However over time the law was transformed by bureaucrats and judges into a hiring quotas and racial preferences regime. Alfred Blumrosen, the Jewish compliance chief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), almost single-handedly banned employment testing and turned workforce imbalances into proof of discrimination to the point where the U.S. Forest Service now posts employment notices that say “only applicants who do not meet standards [i.e. non-Whites] will be considered.”

The real dagger to the heart of traditional America though was the 1965 Immigration Act, which was a Jewish project from start to finish. The cabal's goyishe front-man Ted Kennedy reassured Americans as follows: "What the bill will not do: First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, the Act will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia." The Bill's chief drafter (the Jew Norbert Schlei) knew better, gloating 'now let the floodgates open' after the legislation was passed. There can be no doubt whatsoever that had the American people understood the real purpose of the measure and its future impact it would have been overwhelmingly rejected.

Not least because those same American people would know that it'd involve replacing them with a new electorate brought in from abroad. An electorate for the most part hostile to them. Throughout history such transformations have lead to violent confrontations. But it gets worse in that whole swathes of the country have brazenly flouted duly-constituted Federal law by refusing to deport those in the country illegally. And now, redolent of the Mad Hatter's Teas Party, green-lighting laws will permit illegals to vote. Even arch cuckservative Dan Crenshaw fumed: “It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with non-citizens?” Well Dan you should know them better than most. But seriously, what kind of a democracy allows illegal immigrants to vote? Especially a democracy which has lost control of its borders?

So is violence on the part of White Americans now justified? I'm not advocating it if for no other reason that God alone knows how it would pan out. But to give some perspective consider the revered American Revolutionary War which was driven mainly by fiscal issues and was supported only by a small minority of the population. The Irish 1916 Rebellion initially had little popular support but now forms part of the national psyche. In both cases the citizenry of the time had voting rights which were arguably more meaningful than those 'enjoyed' by Whites in America today. And unlike their compatriots of today they didn't face a hostile replacement population and have their taxes sequestered for their welfare. Neither were their rulers seeking to disarm them in the face of such a hostile invasion.

Look, this is not a simple case of Jews invading and taking the country over. Only too many 'Americans' are happy to carry water for them and very many Jews are unhappy with what's happening. Having said that, it's true that the experience of Yonkers has been replicated, and continues to be replicated, across the length and breath of the country.

As a final thought I'll leave you with a warning from JFK:

"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable"

-----------