Tag Archive | dictator

Stop Virtue Signaling.

It’s been a weird few days.

The Neo-Nazis have done more to make fascists out of libertarians than Molyneaux, Cantwell, and all the Jared Howes of the world could ever have dreamed; in one single day, they managed to take countless people who otherwise advocate the NAP and turn them into irrational hawks screaming for bloodshed. As one of a relatively small group of people advocating calm, peace, and dialogue, I’ve found myself insulted more in the last five days by allies than I have been by enemies across two years of being trans in the south. People who have routinely disagreed with me amicably about the radical/pragmatic split suddenly resort to insulting me.

If there is any succinct and honest way to describe what’s going on, it would be this:

The word “Nazi” has #triggered lots and lots of people.

I was surprised, honestly, on Sunday night to have host of the show Thom Gray yelling at me, angry and hostile, because I had the audacity to ask what the Neo-Nazis had actually done. He was angry. He wasn’t interested in hearing anything that I said, because he instead wanted to shout over me. That brief segment of Libertarian Drama of the Week was basically a preview of everything that has been going on since–right now, it is simply about who shouts the most and who shouts the loudest.

And virtue signaling. Oh, by God, there is so much virtue signaling right now that I’ve not scrolled through my Facebook feed since Sunday morning. Every other post is an open admission that they want to inflict violence on people they disagree with, because they disagree with them, and because the point of disagreement is something that they consider really, really, really awful. Hey, I totally agree. White Nationalism is horrific and stupid, Nazism is horrific and stupid, and the alt-right’s ideology is stupid.

And the fact that I don’t let the presence of Neo-Nazis reduce me to a drooling mess shouting and carrying a pitchfork somehow makes me less moral than the people itching to take up arms. That has been what I’ve observed. Two distinct cliques have formed, divided entirely on this issue, and the allegations coming from the other side are constant and bizarre. Just a little while ago, Vermin Supreme posted in the Audacious Caucus’s Facebook page that if you say something negative about Antifa and you don’t also say something negative about the Neo-Nazis, then you’re going to be taken as a Nazi sympathizer.

What kind of divisive, Us and Them bullshit is this?

When I condemn the United States’ actions in the Middle East, does that suggest or imply that I’m an Isis sympathizer?

It’s a measure of the loss of perspective that has occurred because of That Word–that Word of Pure Evil. I reject all Us and Them bullshit, and this is merely a new form of that. Whether they intended to or not, Vermin Supreme and all the others who are saying such things are carving the world in two and asserting, “You either explicitly condemn them every chance that you get, or you’re with them.”

It is the purest form of virtue signaling, least of all because none of these people seem to be making trips to the southern states to “punch a Nazi.” That’s what makes it virtue signaling. Not even 1% of these people are doing anything to punch Nazis. I would be more inclined to take them seriously and treat them as ideological equals if they were doing that, but they’re not. They’re just virtue signaling about how they want to punch Nazis, and, in the process, throwing absolute vitriol at me because I’ve proposed an alternative solution to dealing with the rise of Neo-Nazism, and have actually taken steps to implement that alternative solution: I’ve reached out to The Non-Believer, Atheism is Unstoppable, Chris Cantwell, and Molyneaux. I want to talk to them. And if they reply, I’m going to reach out to people like Michael Moore and other leaders on the left, and try to organize a sit-down for people to talk about this shit before it gets out of hand.

That’s a lot better than punching people, if you ask me, and it’s several orders of magnitude better than endlessly spouting on Facebook about the desire to punch people with no effort or intention of actually doing so. Posting about wanting to punch Nazis isn’t the same as actually punching Nazis. And I wouldn’t even have a problem with the people posting about wanting to punch Nazis if they weren’t bending over backward to take everything I say out of context, to twist what I say into bizarre and nonsensical forms, to insult me, to berate me, and to treat me like I’m some kind of scum because I’m not willing to signal the virtue that they want me to signal.

If you want to signal virtue about how much you hate Nazis, fine. I hate them, too, and have written at length about what’s wrong with their ideology. But don’t you fucking dare look down your nose at me because you’ve confused your virtue signaling with actually doing something. Talking about your desire to punch them on Facebook and Twitter isn’t going to do anything to stop them. And, you know what? Going out and punching them isn’t going to do anything to stop them, either; it will just reinforce what they already believe. But whatever. Actually going out and attacking them is a different subject entirely.

When Thom yelled at me on The Call to Freedom, it was before and after he’d stated multiple times how badly he wanted to go to Charlottesville and kick in some skulls. Am I missing something? These people aren’t hard to find, especially in Tennessee and Mississippi. I’d bet that he lives within ten miles of at least fifteen of these people. See, the thing is… People who want to do something… do it. It’s sort of how “desire” works. And if someone doesn’t do something, it serves as ipso facto proof that they don’t want to do it.

What do they want? They want to talk about punching Nazis. They want to make sure everyone knows what their virtues are, and they want to look down with disdain at anyone who dares express virtues that, you know, are actually in-line with the Non-Aggression Principle.

I intended to talk once more about how violence and force are the mechanics of the state, and so anyone who attempts to use violence and force to achieve a political or social goal, even if that goal is “getting rid of the Neo-Nazis” is, by definition, attempting to be a state, an Army of One, a dictator, a tyrant who backs up their moral proclamations with guns and bloodshed. Because that’s true, too–it’s the definition of “the state” that libertarians have been using for a long time. It must be the definition, because a single bloodthirsty tyrant ruling over a small village and enforcing his decrees personally is still a state.

But instead, the virtue signaling… It’s well past the point of obnoxious.

You want to punch Nazis? Stop talking about it and go do it.

Otherwise, come down off your high horse and admit that you’re full of shit. And stop pretending like you’re morally superior because you’re too chicken shit to do it yourself and instead want to cheer on for other people while they fight your battles for you.

The Power Gap

In the world of intellectual property, I no longer own this essay–even though I wrote it. When I submitted it to the editor who compiled V2: The Voluntary Voice, I asked about using it, and he stated that he considered them donations. That’s fine, and all, but there was never a Volume 2, and I’ve now sent three emails to [the editor in question] about getting permission to use this essay, and none of them have received a reply. Given that, and given that I reject Intellectual Property anyway, I’m going to post it here in full. If you like the essay, you can buy it from Amazon as paperback or eBook as “V2: The Voluntary Voice.” It contains works from several other anarchists and voluntaryists, so it’s worth purchasing if that sort of thing appeals to you. However, seeing so much talk about revolution against Trump makes this essay more important than it was when I wrote it, and I don’t want to just retread the same ground and basically write the essay again. I am making some changes throughout; the changes will be placed in brackets.

Lol. My years of experience as an editor with Cubed3 are making it hard to keep changes minimal.

The Power Gap

The Second Amendment is a strange part of the Bill of Rights, [primarily because its antiquated wording leaves modern readers confused about its literal meaning,] and there are numerous ways in which it can be interpreted. Strictly speaking, the Second Amendment reads as: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The most obvious problem with interpreting this amendment as protecting the right of individual citizens to have guns is the part about the “well-regulated militia.” It is hard to argue with the interpretation that the Second Amendment ensures that militias have the right to own guns, but that the right resides in the militia, not the individuals [which comprise the militia]. Many go further and state that the Second Amendment protects government-sponsored militias such as the National Guard, but this argument is nonsensical, [basically saying]: The Armed Forces of the Government have the right to own guns and to protect the Free People from the Armed Forces of the Government.

In truth, the Second Amendment’s main purpose is to protect the People from the Armed Forces of the Government. In theory, the Second Amendment allows for the creation of local militias [that] are to be regulated by the Government but not owned and operated by the Government. The Constitution places a clear distinction between the Government’s Army and the People’s Army while acquiescing that the Government has the right to regulate—but not control—the People’s Army.

This is what the Second Amendment protects: our right to form an armed militia to protect ourselves from the armed forces of the Federal Government.

Arms regulation is all over the news these days, and the [Obama Administration] has recently said that the regulation of guns is going to be a hot topic for them in coming months. This isn’t surprising; it has never been a secret that the [Obama Administration] wants more regulation of guns. This issue [consists largely of two opposed sides].

The first side is the Pro-Regulation crowd. Their arguments are wide and varied, ranging from the belief that there is no reason an ordinary citizen would need an assault rifle to [the] less ambitious argument that large-capacity clips are unnecessary. The second side is the Pro-Gun crowd, and [it saddens me to observe] that the majority of pro-gun arguments revolve around the question of hunting.

I want to make something very clear. At the time the Second Amendment was written, people lived in homes that they built themselves. [We] had just fought for our liberty against Imperial Britain, and we were starting to seriously antagonize the Native Americans, a hostility [that] only increased. [When the Second Amendment was conceived], families were largely self-sufficient: they grew their own food, built their own homes, and they hunted their own food.

In the late 18th century, there was no Central Heating. There were no refrigerators, no freezers, [few]* preservatives, and no Wal-Mart. In the late 18th century, when winter struck, families had to survive the cold months by eating food they had preserved, and by hunting. Without the ability to hunt during these winter months, families would have starved en masse. The idea that the Government would try to take away the guns from individual citizens was, to be frank, beyond the wildest dreams of even the most imaginative Founding Father. Guns were necessary to life in those days. [Nearly] every free man in the entire country owned at least one gun. Guns were simply a part of life in the late 18th century, and not Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, nor Thomas Paine, could ever have imagined a time in which the right of Individuals to own guns would come into question. This is why there is no amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects the right of Individuals to own guns.

The idea that the Government would one day attempt to confiscate or restrict gun ownership was beyond the Founding Fathers. There were no assault weapons, there were no tanks, there were no bombers, UAVs, or anything else. There were rifles, cannons, shotguns, and pistols, and there really wasn’t a lot of variation with these weapons within their categories until much later during the Civil War. In the late 18th century, though, a technological gap between the weapons used by the armies of the Government and the weapons used by individuals for hunting was non-existent. Generally speaking, the same gun a man used for hunting would have been the same gun he used to fight the British[**].

Technology progressed, though, and we invented refrigerators, central heating, and preservatives, and we invented a lot of new kinds of weapons. Pistols became secondary weapons, if they were used at all, in the military, while the public at large still found great value in pistols. At this point, the gap in technology came into existence. At this point, the gap in power came into existence.

Cannons evolved into tanks, and tanks were so expensive that the average person could never afford one. The Government had bombers, fighter jets, cargo planes, land mines, and all sorts of other weapons that were simply too expensive to be owned by the average person. Whether or not an average citizen had any business owning a fighter jet or land mine isn’t the question, because the Constitution makes no distinction between powerful weapons and less-powerful weapons. The Constitution does not say that the Federal Government can have nuclear weapons, but the People can’t have them*^.

Our human desire to kill each other has created a very dangerous world. The Founding Fathers could not have fathomed the nuclear weapon; they could not have fathomed a weapon that could, in seconds, annihilate 30 square miles of human beings. They could not fathom that the Military Industrial Complex would one day eat hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars every year in an attempt to make bigger, better, and more efficient weapons of mass destruction. The Founding Fathers could not fathom that the gap between “Weapons owned by Individuals” and “Weapons owned by the Government” could ever become so great.

The gap did become enormous, though. The Federal Government now has hundreds of versions of the most destructive weapon ever invented by humans. The Federal Government conducts research into biological and chemical weapons [that] would devastate entire populations. The Federal Government has satellites and supercomputers that can crack into every email, text-message, and phone call across the entire world and unlock its contents, and thanks to George W. Bush, a warrant is no longer required for the Federal Government to do so.^^

We have come to a point where the Federal Government could literally wipe out every single American citizen in mere minutes. If an American version of Adolph Hitler rose to power in the modern United States, there would not be a thing the citizens of the United States could do to stop him. If President Obama decided to declare himself “President for life” and started abolishing what is left of the tattered and torn Bill of Rights, and had the support of the U.S. military, then there wouldn’t be a thing that We the People could do about it.

It may be unlikely that President Obama would declare himself “President for life.” It may unlikely that the next President, whoever he or she will be, would declare himself or herself “President for life.” I wouldn’t dare to even attempt to predict when this would happen or who would do it, but a precise prediction isn’t necessary.

Friedrich Hayek explained in detail in his book, “The Road to Serfdom,” that it was not some quirky character defect of the German People that allowed them to follow Hitler. The same is true for those people who followed Stalin, Mao, Caesar, and Napoleon. It was not a character defect of the American People that allowed them to firmly stand behind George Bush as he invaded not one but two sovereign nations and the results of our invasions—the mass slaughter of men, women, and children—were flashed all over non-American news networks.

Most importantly, though, is that it was not a fundamental flaw in the morality of the German People that allowed them to elect Hitler and follow him even as he became a dictator. The morality of a nation’s people really has nothing, as Hayek explained, [to do] with the rise of a dictator. There are other factors that lead to central planning and dictatorship, and over and over throughout human history, every nation that has fallen to a dictator has shown these warning signs beforehand.

These warning signs are rampant in the United States today [emphasis added]. Hayek’s deepest fear was that Great Britain and the United States were on the fast track to despotism themselves. Nearly 70 years have since passed, and those original signs are still present. Those original signs are also accompanied by several new signs, several clearer signs, and now, as all the conditions appear ripe for the rise of an American dictator, the Federal Government is pushing the idea of Gun Control.

It’s not a question of “who” will be the dictator to rise, and it’s not a question of “if” a dictator will rise. It’s a question of “when.” History is clear. History does not lie. Worse yet, History has an annoying and lamentable tendency to repeat itself. Life in the modern United States is virtually indistinguishable from life in Nazi Germany just before the outbreak of World War 2 and the beginning of the Holocaust. I’m in no way saying that this will happen in the next few years; I’m saying that it will happen.

No one knows when an American Dictator will rise to power by promising us a Utopia created by the “wonderful” central planning of the leviathan in Washington. One thing, however, is certain. In ancient Rome, the Romans never suspected that Caesar would become a dictator and crucify the Republic. The ancient Romans would have said, “That will never happen to us—we have laws in place to prevent just that.” Similarly, the Germans would have insisted, “That will never happen to us—we have laws in place to prevent just that. We’re a peaceful, Liberty-loving people! We’d never allow that to happen!” The Russians undoubtedly said the same before Stalin; the Italians undoubtedly said the same before Mussolini; the Chinese undoubtedly said the same before Mao.

We are in a worse position than any of these other nations that have fallen to a despotic totalitarianism, [because] we could not fight against our Government if our Government attempted policies similar to what the Nazis pursued. We could not fight against our Government if our Government, like Stalin did with Russian Christian farmers, decided to start rounding up and slaughtering us for any amount of dissent. This is the problem with gun control.

It is absolutely certain that we will one day face an American Hitler/Caesar/Stalin. History has shown time and time again that laws will not prevent the rise of a despotic dictator. History has shown time and time again that the “goodness” of a People will not prevent the rise of a despotic dictator. History has shown time and time again that the good intentions of a People, when combined with their fear and belief that they need more security, will produce a despotic dictator. Whether we look at Obamacare, the Patriot Act, the FEMA Act, the NDAA, welfare programs, or somewhere else, we clearly find two things in the United States today.

First, we find that there is a clear and overwhelming desire by the American People to have the Federal Government do benevolent things. This is how we got the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare)—the People desired the Federal Government to step into the health care field and benevolently ensure that each American has “the right” to health care. Many Americans are now afraid of the potential disasters that can be created by automatic weapons and large-capacity clips and are asking the Federal Government to step in and benevolently restrict or outlaw the ownership of these things.

Secondly, we find that there is a predominant fear across the United States [that has fluctuated some but remains a factor] since the 9/11 attacks. The [attack on our Libyan Embassy] caused indignation and anger, but not fear. Fear is still present, though, as the recent renewal of the Patriot Act clearly shows—the main argument presented in Congress in support of renewing the Patriot Act was that the “terrorists are still out there.” The recent shootings are causing fear such that Americans are now ready to surrender the ability to own automatic weapons.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If that’s the case, then the road to Totalitarianism is paved with fear. We have surrendered a lot of our Liberty since September 11, 2001 so that the Federal Government could “better protect us” from the terrorists, and once we surrendered one Liberty, we jumped onto a spiral that will only end when every Liberty is taken from us.

The Constitution was the line in the sand between our Liberties and the Government’s Power. When we allowed the Patriot Act to demolish the Fourth Amendment, this line in the sand was erased and moved closer to Tyranny and further from Liberty. We have set the precedent and the Government knows it. The Federal Government knows now that when we are afraid, we are more than willing to surrender Liberty in exchange to feel safe. It’s now obvious that we’re never going to get the Fourth Amendment back. If the argument last year for renewing the Patriot Act was that “the terrorists are still out there,” then the Patriot Act is going to be in effect until the end of time. The terrorists will always be out there. We will never rid the world of what our Government defines as “terrorism.”

Now we have the NDAA (and numerous other bills), which handed over to the Federal Government the power to arrest, detain, and imprison American Citizens indefinitely without a trial. Since no trial is needed, no cause is needed. If a person never gets a trial, then they will never be found Not Guilty. If a person never gets a trial, then there is no requirement to even have a justifiable reason in arresting a person. It really doesn’t matter whether or not the Federal Government has indefinitely detained any American Citizens, nor does it matter whether they are likely to do this any time soon. The fact is that the Federal Government can arrest you for no reason at all and imprison you for the rest of your life without ever giving you a trial or telling you why you were arrested.

The Federal Government already has this kind of power, and we’re still discussing whether or not an American Hitler is going to rise? It’s abundantly clear. The United States Government is brazenly passing laws which legalize their committing actions which were the reason why we hated Hitler in the first place. The United States Government is doing it in the open, in broad daylight, without any fear of repercussion from the American People—Hitler would have loved nothing more than to do in Germany what the American Government is now giving itself the power to do to us.

The Federal Government, though, has no concern at all that we’re going to do anything about the NDAA or the Patriot Act. The Federal Government gave itself the power to indefinitely detain American Citizens with total impunity because there is already nothing we can do to stop them. There is nothing we could do that would repeal the NDAA. The same power-loving, war-mongering, naïve puppets that passed the NDAA will be the same power-loving, war-mongering, naïve puppets who renew the NDAA, and Public Opinion will make no difference at all. Public Opinion didn’t matter to the Patriot Act’s renewal, after all.

Systematically replacing our Senators and Representatives with honest people of integrity who would vote against and repeal all infringements of our Liberty is an impossible task. Since the only option, without replacing each and every Congressman who is not exclusively Libertarian, left is revolution, the Federal Government is left smoking its cigars and drinking its champagne in celebration of their newly-acquired power.

If events came to a head—if the Federal Government started exercising this power, for example—and a revolution was necessary to avoid the rising American Hitler, then the American People would not stand a chance. The United States Military, which will predominantly support the Federal Government and not a revolution against it, has UAVs, automated and robotic soldiers, tanks, jets, cluster bombs, and all sorts of things that the American People do not have. And if the White House gets its way, the American People will be left with single-shot shotguns and single-shot rifles to defend themselves against the tanks destroying their homes.

I don’t have a solution. The situation is bleak and there is precious little hope that Liberty is going to prevail and that the rise of an American Dictator can be prevented. I couldn’t begin to postulate a way to prevent President Obama, if he decided to, from declaring himself “President for life.” My goal here isn’t to present a solution; my goal here is to present the problem, because Americans seem to be unaware of it.

We are already in a situation which renders us nearly powerless to prevent any President from declaring himself a life-long dictator. We are already in a situation which renders us nearly powerless to defend ourselves against the weapons of the Federal Government. The situation is dire, and the power gap is only going to increase if we remain ignorant of it. We must spread the facts; we must spread the true gravity of the situation in which we’ve found ourselves. We must work toward a solution; we must work toward the restoration of Liberty and the Balance of Power between the Federal Government and the People. Before we can do these things, however, we must understand the problem… and the problem is much more severe than we realize.

* Fact-checking fail. Salt is a preservative and definitely existed then.

** The Kentucky Long Rifle, invented by a greatx17ish grandfather. 😀

*^ I would imagine that it’s this line that caused one of the critics to call me a Constitutionalist, which showed a large misunderstanding of Constitutionalism on the critic’s part. Simply referring to the Constitution in a society where the Constitution is, presumably, the highest law of the land does not qualify someone as a Constitutionalist. I hate the Constitution. But it’s there right now–it literally exists. Any discussion about the state of our rights according to the state will necessarily begin at the Constitution, even if the discussion doesn’t end there.

^^ Predating the Snowden leak by at least 4 years! XD

How Would Americans Handle President Fuhrer?

I recently talked about how libertarians and anarchists need to draw a line in the sand with our government, and make it clear that, if that line is crossed, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the government against the people, and will be treated as such. Don’t get me wrong–I think that needs to happen, and I think it’s ultimately necessary for the government to be firmly reminded that we are armed and will not tolerate much more bullshit, but I also know that it won’t happen.

Calling upon the Libertarian Party to draw this line is a waste of bandwidth and the time it takes to type the sentence. This is not Sarwark’s fault, of course, or Austin Petersen’s or Gary Johnson’s; it is the party’s fault generally because, as I alluded to in the previous discussion, concerns about electability and what is a “good” political move will forever prevent the Libertarian Party from probably ever being anything like its older, principled self.

But it isn’t just the Libertarian Party that wouldn’t dare make such a statement publicly. In fact, very few people would be willing to. The reason has to do with psychology, the innate desire for acceptance, the horror that we may be seen as overreacting, and peer pressure to conform and behave as others behave. Can I back up this claim? Goodness, yes.

We recoil when we see in the news that a bunch of neighbors watched as a woman was gang raped and murdered in broad daylight, with none of them intervening and none of them even calling the police, and we tell ourselves, “Goodness, no! I would have intervened! I would have at least called the police!” And this is true–if there is no one else around. Strangely, as the number of people around the scene increases, the chances of someone intervening or even calling the police drop. It’s very peculiar, but it’s a known fact.

This experiment consisted of people being placed in a room to wait for an interview while they filled out paperwork. Smoke began to roll from the bottom of the interviewer’s office door. The results showed that, when people were alone, they were far more likely to treat the situation like it was a potential emergency. On the other hand, when the person was not alone, they were far more likely to ignore the smoke and pretend like they didn’t notice it–even as they began coughing from it. It’s called the Bystander Effect, and it’s a serious problem.

It will be the reason that almost no one does anything about President Fuhrer, whoever that president happens to be.

Even in my article, I stated at least twice that I was not making the allegation that this was about to happen or that there was any reason to panic; the same psychological tendencies exist in me, too, of course. I don’t want to sound like I’m in foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics over President Trump when there really isn’t that much to be worried about. It’s a shame that modern liberals lack this restraint, but with all their friends pushed into overreaction by the media, we all became outcasts for not overreacting to President Trump.

Just as I was insulted–heavily insulted–simply because I did not overreact to the clown sightings of 2016. It became acceptable to be hysterical, to make Facebook posts about how one would “totally shoot a clown on sight” and how a clown “better hope I don’t see one, I’ll break a bat on a motherfucker’s face!” Hysteria became the norm, and thus it wasn’t considered hysterical. Closing down schools, posts from people about how they would gladly shoot someone just for dressing up like a clown… These became acceptable, while trying to convince people they were exhibiting the same behavior that led to the Salem Witch Trials went against the grain and became unacceptable. Instead of everyone fearing to be seen in hysterics, people feared to be seen reacting calmly and proportionally.

Overreaction became the acceptable level of reaction.

In effect, measured, proportional reaction became under-reaction.

This happened again when Trump won the November election. Holy hell, people went crazy, and I can think of at least a dozen people who should be too damned embarrassed to even show their faces in public, yet instead of having any shame they’re still carrying the hysterical insanity torch proudly. That’s a hell of a thing to say, considering that my previous article said that we needed to be ready to fight an American dictator with guns and not words, but the difference is context; the difference is reaction, overreaction, or anticipation.

Shortly after the election, I had an extensive discussion with a woman who claimed to be Hispanic–though she had the whitest goddamned name I’ve ever heard, short of Wendy McFinnigan–and who claimed to be huddling in her house in fear with her children, crying and terrified. One of my clients, a doctor, closed her practice and returned to India, though she claimed it had nothing to do with the election, she sold off her equipment days after Trump’s victory, and was in such a hurry that she refused to wait and let me wipe the drives. Yes, that’s correct. She sold computers with tons of patients’ medical data on them; clearly, she has no intention of ever returning to the United States, because that’s illegal in more ways than I can count, and I can count to at least seven.

There are three large, politically active groups in the United States: conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. All of these are subdivided into various groups that range in loudness, pettiness, stupidity, petulance, childishness, horror of policy, and activism. Conservatives consist of the Tea Party, the alt-right, liberty-leaning conservatives. Liberals consist of Greens, communists, socialists, mainstream democrats. Libertarians consist of libertarians, classical liberals, minarchists, anarchists. There are other groups, of course, and more divisions within the three large groups, but none of that is really that important.

The important part is that the left overreacts to everything, which makes them pretty much The Party That Cries Wolf. They scream about racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, and every manner of -phobia so often that when one of these descriptive labels actually applies to an action, it’s met with the eye rolling and groaning that accompany the mundane and familiar. “Oh, Democrats are screaming about some sexist thing… again…”

Plus, their manner of doing things is to simply make a lot of noise. They’re good at getting the media’s attention, but they’ve routinely shown that they don’t have a clue what to do once they have that attention. Black Lives Matter is my “go to” example, but it’s hardly unique to that movement; virtually everything that liberals protest and demonstrate for or against gets a lot of attention but does nothing, changes nothing, and accomplishes nothing. It’s ultimately just noise. This doesn’t mean that I agree or disagree with the sentiments they’re expressing; I do not approve, however, of how they [don’t] achieve their goals. Like the Republicans now that they totally control the government, liberals in general are like the dog that finally caught the car–now that they have it, they don’t know what to do with it. “Alright! We shut down a major interstate that stretches from California to North Carolina! The country’s eyes are on us! … … … So what do we do?”

Meanwhile, Trump and the alt-right have made huge strides in getting conservatives to accept and go along with some truly horrible policies. People cheered when Trump said he would bring back torture, when he said that he’d go after terrorists’ families, and when he said that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country. Four years ago, a Republican saying that would have quickly found his political career in shambles.

This means that the two biggest chunks of the politically active American population won’t do anything to fight against President Fuhrer. The liberals won’t, either because President Fuhrer is a liberal–President Obama showed us just how much liberals will turn a blind eye to, and their zeal to inflict violence upon people who disagree with them knows almost no bounds–or because they simply don’t know how. They’ll be the group out protesting while the U.S. military rounds up Muslims. And, surprisingly, they’ll be ignored, I think, because clamping down on protest would only exacerbate the problem and possibly motivate people to further action. As long as they’re simply protesting, they’re only making noise and accomplishing nothing, so I believe President Fuhrer would largely ignore them. People who aren’t already liberals will certainly ignore them, because liberals are always protesting and demonstrating–generating noise–and we’ve already started to filter it out.

There are two paths I see us going down in the future, and it really depends on the timing. There is a strong chance that President Fuhrer will be a conservative, in which case conservatives won’t resist. However, there is also a strong chance that liberals will vote in a terrible choice in 2020, who proceeds to gut the Tenth Amendment and force liberal legislation onto conservative states, particularly regarding abortion and LGBTQ issues, which is more likely than anything to send the conservative states into secession again. People who advocate #CalExit today would, of course, be opposed to this, because “If Mississippi leaves, then we can’t force Mississippi to put LGBTQ people on a pedestal! No, they can’t leave, because they only reason they want to leave is to oppress people!”

I’m sure we all know how the rest will play out.

This really only leaves the Libertarians, but they’re generally so concerned about how the public perceives the Libertarian Party that the absolute last thing they would ever, ever do is appear to be overreacting. The Libertarian Party is lately motivated by only one single concern: mainstream acceptance. The psychological tendencies that create the Bystander Effect virtually control the Libertarian Party, such that it would probably be the last group to actually take up arms against a tyrannical government. Only once most people were doing it and it was socially acceptable would the Libertarian Party do it, because they’re terrified of doing anything that will make them appear kooky or extreme.

It’s simply sad, but true, that the Democratic Party is more likely to tell Trump, “If you begin construction of this wall or impose a national registry of Muslims–or any other group–then we will take it as a declaration of war against the American People!” than the Libertarian Party is. If the Democratic Party did do that, then I’m sure the Libertarian Party would immediately leap to its feet and cry, “Us, too! Us, too! Yeah! A declaration of war!”

But regardless of political affiliations, it won’t much matter how President Fuhrer and his/her actions sit with people. They won’t do anything, because they don’t want bystanders to think they’re overreacting. And by the time it reached the point where it obviously wouldn’t be overreacting, because President Fuhrer had already declared martial law and started rounding people up, it would be too damned late to do anything about it.

So I guess we need to hope that President Fuhrer never rises, because the American People won’t do anything about it until it’s way too late.