Tuesday, October 28, 2008

In praise of assisted suicide

"Imperial overstretch" is upon us. The term is no longer a long-term prediction about what's going to hit us if we allow the hazardous waste zone that is DC to continue to throw its weight around the world. It's now shorthand for the daily news, from the Diversity Depression brought on by DC's mandated egalitarianism, to the horrific waste and carnage caused by DC's endless wars. Oh, and let's not forget another high price of international bullying, the condemnation of the world for DC's arrogance and aggression, of which the DC-sanctioned terror attack on Syria is only the latest example.

What's a devolutionist to do? How can we possibly resist?

By helping, that's how. The best we can do is cheer on imperial overstretch. The Empire's sheer unmanageable bulk is hardening its arteries. What do we do about its endless hunger for more centralization, more expansion, more self-destruction?

Feed it, that's what. Uncle Sam is one decrepit patient. Dr. Rebellion prescribes lots of Boston cream pies and cheeseburgers.

But we need to do it right. We can do that by taking advantage of the split between the two wings of the ruling single party. While Republicans want to reconstruct the world, and make war on Islamomeanies, Democrats want to reconstruct America by waging war on "flyover country." The biggest gripe leftists have about the Iraq War is that so much ammo is being wasted on Baghdad that could be used on Mississippi. While both DC factions pursue the globalist agenda, they argue about priorities.

We've been pointing out for some time that Republicans have expanded government power and assaulted our liberty in the name of conservatism, effectively silencing and co-opting Southerners and conservatives. In effect, they've been committing assisted suicide against us. So let's turn the tables on our handlers by supporting the wing that will enflame Southerners and conservatives and turn them against their exploiters. Step one is to give Democrats enough rope to hang themselves.

Here's how the New York Times describes how that can happen in a must-read piece of analysis. Republicans, facing angry, frightened voters, have been reduced to "urging them to split their tickets to deny Democrats unfettered control." The possibility of unchecked power may tempt the Democrats to go too far:

That is also the premise of a recent television advertisement supporting Senator Elizabeth Dole, Republican of North Carolina, whose seat is an integral part of the Democratic drive toward 60 votes, as she fights to hold on against Kay R. Hagan, a Democratic state senator.

Ominous music plays in the background as a narrator intones: “These liberals want complete control of government, in a time of crisis. All branches of government. No checks and balances. No debate. No independence. That’s the truth behind Kay Hagan. If she wins, they get a blank check.”

If Mr. Obama, of Illinois, defeats Mr. McCain, he could be the first president since Jimmy Carter to enter office with wide control of the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

The Times piece argues that the leftward spiral would be unstoppable:

Democrats, who are within reach of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate, would also face high expectations, especially from the party’s more liberal quarters, that could be difficult to meet even with enhanced numbers in the Senate as well as the House. And they would be at risk of overreaching, a tendency that has deeply damaged both parties in similar situations in the past.

Obama is a globalist who will expand the power of government to further erode our rights, our culture (which originated and sustains our traditional rights), and way of life. But guess what? So is McCain, who, like Obama, supports warrantless surveillance, more government control over our lives, and sees forced egalitarianism as a universal goal justifying reconstruction at home and abroad. An Obama administration will continue the Bush Doctrine that sees its subjects as being either "with us or against us," and can be counted on to expand the policy that views dissent from the globalist agenda as extremism.

Obama -- even more than Hillary -- will rip off the mask of phony conservatism that has misled our people into supporting their own disenfranchisement.

And yes, this is how far we've fallen, with little more to hope for other than that our handlers will self-destruct from their own greed and hubris. But their abundant supply of both offer much to hope for.


Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...

Interesting you should post this, Mr. Tuggle. Just a day or so ago I was thinking about strategies to effect the kind of change (REAL change) that those of us on this side of the fence want to see. Ultimately, those strategies entail the undoing of the Federal/Imperial Leviathan so that political power can devolve back to the states and local communities.

But how to undo it? Well, there are only two possibilities: either we overthrow it or undermine it. Which essentially means there is only one possibility - to undermine it, as to seek to overthrow it is neither wise nor practical.

Well then, how to undermine it? By letting it go its merry way, that's how.

Yes, it will be difficult to suffer the effects of the Empire's fall. But if we prepare adequately, and simply try to dodge the pieces of the collapsing structure, we will be well poised to begin the work of creating something anew.

Well, something old, actually. Something old, and good. Something tried and true.

So, folks, don't go out there and do anything stupid. Don't go form some dang militia (but do keep your powder dry). Don't go out there and bring attention to yourselves by publicly raging against the machine (but do engage in the work of creating an alternative culture).


Anonymous said...

I've often thought that what is needed is a kind of pro-Southern "Atlas Shrugged" plan.Basically go and live your life while having as little to do with the empire as possible and also begin forming local communities of pro-South folks.

apollonian said...

What a joke. U idiots want to do what?--while u ban free speech/expression? Why do u people bother? Apollonian

Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...

Mike, I thought you fumigated the place.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying we should vote for Barack Hussein Obama?


Michael Tuggle said...

snaggle-tooth jones,

The longer we stay hooked on the Empire's forged goodies, the worse the withdrawal will be. Better sooner than later.

Michael Tuggle said...


The "Atlas Shrugged" model is a pretty good analogy in that we're doing what the Empire wants us to do, and they don't see how that will actually undo them.


Michael Tuggle said...


Not only should we vote for BHO, but for all liberal Democrats. Yes, it'll be unpleasant, but will save us worse suffering in the long run -- kinda like sawing off a gangrenous forearm.

jack burns said...

Forced egalitarianism is an oxymoron. There's nothing egalitarian about being forced.

Pawmetto said...

The bubbas and bubbettes may want to go the militia route..NOT!
We must somehow educate them on how to survive the demise of Empire while staying a steady course to home rule, er self-rule in Dixie.
Once we realize as a Southern people COLLECTIVELY that the cause is still alive..by us ALL..black, red, yellow, white..WE WILL SUCCEED!
This is our moment..let's seize upon it and be victorious this time!

"Sometimes ya hafta lose yourself 'fore ya kin find anythin'"
Lewis Medlock.. "Deliverance"

Damon Crowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damon Crowe said...

Mr. Tuggle,

I respect you VERY much, but I have to disagree on a high level with your assesment of the situation.

I feel the need to again asset that I respect you very, very much.

If McCain is elected, I agree that the "conservative" base will defend him no matter what he does, just like the Republican base has done.

And if Obama is elected, the Republican base will fight everything that he pushes through.

The problem is that this is central party politics. The result is that the Repub. base will continue to believe in the Republican Party if and when Barack is appointed president.

In four years they will vote for the next tyrannical Republican Presidential candidate.

The GOP needs to be sent a message and "Christian" voters need to send the GOP a message. Not just the GOP, but the nation.

We will not vote for a tyrant on one side or the other.

To me it is silly to think that we will prevail by voting for a "worse" tyrant in order to "assist suicide."

God reigns and he gives us the government that we deserve. I have been watching the numbers of the Constitution Party grow in the past TWELVE years in which I have voted and they have indeed GROWN.

Not only that, but when I go to vote, I know I do "in the face of GOD." I as a professing (albeit miserable) Christian cannot give consent to an ungodly man to lead me.

God says to choose from among you a godly leader.

As in the history of Saul and Israel, God will give us the "king" we ask for.

The ONLY vote I could give this November is for Chuck Baldwin. I KNOW that God is in control and that when we turn towards Him, he will give us perfect and godly government.

Again, Mr. Tuggle, I have a high respect for you and your opinion, but I feel as though you are attempting to find righteous government through man's works.

I will vote for the ONLY righteous leader even though he cannot win in the present two party system, Chuck Baldwin.

I cannot say it enough, I only RESPECTFULLY disagree and I hope I can have a voice in the movement to Southern liberation.

God Save the South.
Have mercy on us your servants.

Michael Tuggle said...

damon crowe,

Yours is a very respected voice.

I'm just pointing out that we've lost more of our freedom and culture in the past 8 years under a "conservative" Republican administration than we lost under the Clintons.

The reason? Because our people were fooled into believing that surrendering our rights to a strong Federal government was the conservative and patriotic thing to do. Had Clinton attempted such outrages as warrantless surveillance and amnesty for illegal alien invaders, there'd be riots in the streets.

Better to provoke people to action than to let them think everything will be ok under another Neocon administration.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you just censor damoncrowe like you do everyone else who disagrees with you?

Freebird said...

Because, like a true Southern gentleman, Mr. Crowe RESPECTFULLY disagreed with Mr. Tuggle. And, in return, like another true Southern gentleman, Mr. Tuggle respected Mr. Crowe's position. A man of conviction would recognise this.

All of us likeminded folks who post here on a regular basis have a great deal of respect for Mr. Tuggle and would gladly stand in the gap for him anytime.

I don't have a blog (yet), but my hat's off to all of you who value free speech and express yourself with the qualities of decency and morality.

Michael Tuggle said...


I encourage debate, even when it gets raucous. But I do draw the line at death threats. I guess I'm just funny that way.

Michael Tuggle said...


I appreciate that!

Jeff ( Va. Rebel ) said...

Damon Crowe 9 : 08 PM -

Aah ... a voice cries out from the wilderness . Excellent .

1 Samuel 8 : 6 - 22

Jeff ( Va. Rebel ) said...

Mike - truth be told , I wonder why you can't be bothered to keep a tighter control on your comments section ?
Moderation is an option you seem not to desire .

Allowing civil discourse and disagreement is one thing ...

Allowing any foul mouthed provocatuer access is another .

I'd rather run my blog completely without comments
( which I almost do ) than permit the foul , arrogant rantings of an Apollo moon shot gone astray to taint my pages and contributors .

Yer blog boss .

Michael Tuggle said...

jeff (va. rebel),

"an Apollo moon shot gone astray"

I loved that!

I looked up how to block obscene and criminal comments for blogger, but it looks like too much work. It was simple under the previous blog software package the LS used, but this isn't as sophisticated.

I'll just have to keep taking out the trash as it blows in.

Jeff ( Va. Rebel ) said...

Mike - I reckon I just supposed all incoming comments had the capability for the moderator to first screen before printing if so chosen , such as google blogger . Perhaps all are not the same . Shouldn't tell you how to run yer blog anyhow .

Michael Tuggle said...

jeff (va. rebel),

I'll take all the advice I can get.

Jeff ( Va. Rebel ) said...

Freebird - " Stand in the gap " . I love that term .

Ezekiel 13 : 1 - 16

(hope somebody else is searching scripture and checking for continuity and meaning ... we are ground zero and no one seems to know or care)

Rebel with a clue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rebel with a clue said...

Forced multiculturalism is very, very hypocritical because it deprives the nation's founding culture of its basic right to self-assertion and makes all of its members guilty by association of their ancestors' wrongdoings, both real and attributed. And any resistance to the multicultural agenda or even the preservation of traditional values results in cries of racism against which there seems to be no defense. Whoever is suspected of racism is automatically guilty.

However, if you see where they're going with that, it becomes very easy to understand:

A nation that is not held together by a shared culture is very easy to control because the government becomes that "glue" that holds together the otherwise incompatible cultures, providing an alternate means of communication and integration.

To understand the traditional concept of nationhood, one does not even need to appeal to notions of ethnicity, blood lines, race, etc., all of which have been abused on numerous occasions by politicians past and present. It all boils down to a much more fundamental concept - PROPERTY RIGHTS.

In a sense, a nation is a large-scale counterpart of a family. It may have just one major bloodline or many mixed bloodlines. Not all families have the same access to resources... but anyhow, how does one enter a family?

- By being born into it
- By marriage
- By adoption

and... there's no other way! Just because the house next door appeals to you, it doesn't mean you can enter it at will. Even to gain temporary access (i.e. to come over), you need an invitation. And you cannot force your neighbor to accept you; in order for you to gain any access (even temporary) to his own or his family's property, you need his permission. The same rules have applied to nations for a long, long time:

Being born into a family ~ Being born of a citizen
Marriage ~ Marrying a citizen
Adoption ~ Legal immigration followed by naturalization

Theoretically, it is perfectly normal for a nation not to have an immigration program AT ALL, and this has nothing to do with bigotry. Just like someone may decide not to marry or not to sell their house no matter how badly someone else may want to buy it, the citizens of a country may collectively decide that there is no specific need for a large influx of immigrants - not because they're prejudiced but simply because it is not mutually beneficial at a given point in time. Marginal cases can then be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In fact, a lot of "second-world" countries function like that: there is no program that grants permanent residence or even work visas, and to obtain citizenship, you need to request it directly from the highest level of gov't (e.g. the president or the prime minister) by writing a long letter of intent with no specific guarantee of acceptance.
Is this bigotry? I don't think so...

If a country does invite immigrants, it has every right to be selective in who it accepts. The more attractive the country, the more people will want to come; but coincidentally, accepting everyone without discretion will result in a gradual loss of what made it attractive in the first place. Think about major universities and how they don't accept anyone who has the money to pay tuition. Similarly, if the Founding Fathers' America still existed, it would have every right to reject those who practice "invasion through immigration" and have no intention of "becoming Americans" -- even if they desire to enter legally. And allowing illegals to not only get jobs but also to use gov't services is just like leaving your door open and thus allowing anyone who happens to walk by your house to use your posessions!

And seriously... if you can't put up with the host culture, its symbols and its religion, and you won't even speak the language -- WHY BOTHER IMMIGRATING????

Michael Tuggle said...

rebel with a clue,

You have more than a clue, my friend. That was well said.

Of course, the answer to your question, "Why immigrate if you're not willing to assimilate?" is pretty stark: because the powers that be WANT these people to disrupt and ultimately destroy our traditional culture. As it is weakened to the point it no longer provides organic order, the government has more opportunity to usurp even more power -- all in the name of restoring order, of course.