I see a lot of nominally conservative talking heads today talking about the need for a peaceful resolution to our national issues.
Pardon me all to hell, but I’m pretty sure we tried that.
We did what we were supposed to do. We organized and voted and saw our victory (and our self-government) stolen in the most brazen manner imaginable. It’s been made clear that honest elections are now off the table. So we tried to do the right thing and demand that state legislatures do their duty to set things right; they refused. So we asked the courts to set things right; they told us to fuck off. So in desperation we looked to the final Constitutional safety catch to do his duty, and Mike Pence turned out to be the spineless prick I’ve been saying he is.
So what does a “peaceful resolution” look like when the Constitution and the law is declared a dead letter and everyone tasked with enforcing it is in on the crime? Are we supposed to just shrug, say “well played!” and accept a Marxist takeover?
This isn’t a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely curious what we’re supposed to do here according to these people.
23 replies on “What the hell does a “peaceful resolution” look like, exactly?”
Does cheating the electon count as “peaceful”? And the array of intimidation on those who seek investigation?
Reminds me the movie “Horrible Bosses”.
Since we’ve learned that elections, the local and state governments, the federal government and even the supreme court gives no redress of grievances, it makes perfect sense for us to try and get elected so we can “root out” the evil politicians. It’s worked so well for so long.(Utter sarcasm.)
BTW, this isn’t the 1st election they have stolen. Ask AZ back in 2018. And surprise! AZ did it again this year. Shocker. And the “loco” Nancy Pelosi gets voted back in as House Speaker after some of her “flock” postured they were against it. Voted for her anyway.
And here’s the icing on the cake . . . the same state that cheated their butts off in the Pres. election has a run off with the same machines and not allowing observers to observe and it’s a “fair and secure” election. PLEASE!
They are obviously (after the events of today unfolded) at least 10 steps ahead of us and we’re talking about using the same system of voting that’s a travesty of the Constitution today to fix it.
Pardon me if I believe that’s what they know we’ll try and do.
They are STILL laughing at us. They’ve been laughing at us for at least 20 years.
Some days I think it’s best just to go back to sleep or else think I’m crazy and conservative plans are somehow developmentally delayed.
According to those who are complicit with the subversion of the recent federal election, both executive and senatorial, a “peaceful resolution” looks like the response of all subjugated people in recorded history:
Unfortunately, this passivity is obvious within my own household, and it makes me cringe at the thought of the alternate world history if our forebears had chosen such a spineless path of creature comforts and “safety.”
Brownie points for a CS Lewis quote 🙂
Peace is not the Absence of Conflict.
Peace is the Management of Conflict.
Only Equals can Manage Conflict. Because only Equals have sufficient reason to respect each other even when they do not want to show any respect. They understand that if they go Open with their Conflicts neither can truly win.
Now, have Republicans or Conservatives been the equals of the Liberals, the Democrats, or the Left at any time since … FDR?
Oh, we’ve had leaders who managed to help us be stronger than we were wont to be for all of five minutes at a time. Eisenhower and Reagan. But other than that we have been led by people who have made a fetish being “Respectable”.
And we’ve had Brilliant people like that Gibbering Jackass who revived National Review.
Peace will come. When we wage War and make the Left want real Peace.
Jack the Coward will eat a lot of beans down in that basement. Remember that scene in Blazing Saddles? Jack will do a one man show repeating it.
I must admit I don’t read that publication. To which “Gibbering Jackass” do you refer?
William F. Buckley … he made a point of showing off how incomprehensible he could be.
William James, Henry James, William Faulkner, K Chesterton … all as clear as Ernest Hemingway next to WFB.
The point is not to throw our morals and standards out the window to join in with what the other side is doing.
I was very pleased to see that Florida sheriff talking about deputising gun owners (probably conservatives) if the need arose due to violence from the left. That is a legal protest against lawlessness.
People need to take over the lower eschelons of the political apparatus by taking part in local government. They need to vote out the spineless politicians who do not represent them. They need to start up business concerns that will take a more neutral stance within the media eschelons.
We need to find ways to legally, or at least morally take a stand against the issues we see. I hope that Bill outlines some of those in the upcoming videos.
Ain’t what you advise what we have been doing?
What did that make us?
Beautiful Losers.
Try being useful.
Or its the Bomb Shelter and the canned Beans for you.
Ramble on and Fart, Jack.
That’s what MB2A is for. Were already working.
And good on you for doing it too.
I believe that many have continued to do exactly what you are stating; however, it is obvious to me and millions of others that the corrupt leadership has subverted the recent federal election, both executive and senatorial. We have achieved what Franklin predicted:
As a result of such individual pursuits of dipping into the public largesse via elections, we are saddled with a dominant leadership that is totally corrupt and possibly permanently-entrenched without “illegal” methods.
I’ve often heard that insanity is defined to be the continued repetition of failed efforts while expecting different results. It’s past time to try something radically different.
Some good points there.
I agree that some people have been trying those things and it has failed due to corruption up at the highest levels. I do think there is something to the case (and I believe Bill mentioned this) that the people have relinquished their control upon the government and left it to politicians.
I think there is a slim chance that it could be over-turned with a Conservative Insurgency (as per Kurt Schlichter) and I’d like to see that, because essentially the only alternative is violence (as advocated constantly in these comments by our friend Edward Smith).
If enough people want that, then you’ll get it. Only rather like the mobs of the left, there is no controlling it. If both sides do likewise then your country will ride the helter-skelter to near oblivion and see her citizens in situations beyond where any hollywood film director’s imagination has ever dared suggest the depths of inhumanity can go. It has done it twice before. I hope you can bear the cost.
I don’t advocate violence.
I understand why it happens.
I know that it has happened frequently enough to recognize early enough that the possibility of it has increased, but that it can be prevented.
If you decide you do not wish to see that possibility of violence having increased, you make it a probability, and are as much at fault for it happening as the person who actively encourages it.
You want good things to happen, you have to be able to walk in a room, see the dog sleeping, the fan not plugged in, and dog dish empty, the bag of dog food unopened …
and be able to see the shit hitting the fan, then stop it from happening.
It helps to be able to imagine what you don’t want if you don’t want it to happen.
That’s what I do, Jack.
Also, I feel sympathy for people rather than just condemning them from the start.
There is only One who is truly fit to Judge ANY HUMAN BEING.
That is not you, Jack, and it is not me.
Ed. I understand how violence works, and I understand that freedom is usually bought with blood. There is a difference between attacking the other side and defending yourself. Personally I think your country is going to be hauled over the coals, although probably not through a civil war, more likely external forces.
If any semblance of the USA is going to appear from the ashes, if your constitution is going to be rescued when it hangs from a thread, then the only way this can happen is through decent people. If we turn into the same people as those in power on the left, then there is no hope for America to rise again; because what makes America the country it is, is its people and their values.
In my opinion, the cost of submitting to tyranny is much greater than the cost of either a revolutionary or civil war. Right now, much of the power/political structure in the United States is tyrannical.
I don’t disagree with defending yourself, it’s what the second amendment is for; and that could get messy. But provocation is not the answer; and alternative routes must be found to convert the other side to our thinking.
The other side will not convert to your thinking. That is what makes it “the other side” kinda like definition. All you can hope is to grab (back) from the pool of undecideds.
Perhaps I am being naive, but I really hope that isn’t the case. Whilst I think a lot of those in charge on the left are very much corrupt and despicable people, I still believe that the average democrat voter is a decent person, and just very clueless about the reality of things; probably due to their education or social situation.
I think we need to push more clueless democrats into that undecided moderates camp.
Sure, the “average democrat”, whatever that means may mostly fall in the middle box. I’m talking about the anti-americans. Who are not just ignorant but actively believe all the [you know the list]. And due to 3 decades of active brainwashing I think that is a pretty large pool.
The fundamental problem with the “average democrat” that conservatives, like myself, cannot overcome is its overwhelming tendency to be controlled by emotion rather than reason. That is a divide that takes years to overcome, if it’s even possible to do so; meanwhile, the emotional rioters and fanatics will burn the world. Consider the duality of Islam: 1) there is a peaceful form (Mecca), and 2) there is a violently-destructive form (Medina). I’ll give you one guess which form was historically more successful in spreading its ideology through the Arab Peninsula and eventually Europe.
Similarly, we are in a war of ideology, and the other side is willing to kill its opposition. If you think the 2nd Amendment is intended solely for defensive purpose, then your admitted naivete will result in your defeat. A pure “castle doctrine” allows the enemy time to amass sufficient force to breach any fortifications.
Maybe, after a while, when the Left learns that Conservatives can fight.
But after Conservatives throw their False Friends to the curb clearly enough for even the Media to not care about Mittens?
This is not that time. Not yet. You want what has been called Peace? Hide in the bomb shelter and eat your canned beans.