03 December 2012

Chuck asks the 64,000 dollar question.

So Chuck left a comment saying I was self selecting to not be on his reading list anymore, and then asked this question. 
I'm wondering why someone who is so invested in the pro-diversity, feminist, LBGT rights, blah, blah, culture is in ANY way associated with patriot/liberty blogging.
And that is a really good question.  But first, let us highlight a few words.
I'm wondering why someone who is so invested in the pro-diversity, feminist, LBGT rights, blah, blah, culture is in ANY way associated with patriot/liberty blogging.
And once we take out the extraneous labels, Chuck answers his own question with this statement.
 Someone who is invested in rights is associated with liberty.
 The crux of the matter is that I just don't care about my own rights and liberty.  I care about yours, and the people you are free to despise, belittle, or marginalize as well.  Thomas Jefferson preferred the troubles of too much liberty than those troubles attendant to too little liberty.  Benjamin Franklin wisely noted to some of the most cantankerous men of his age that "Gentlemen, if we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately."  The Founding Fathers allowed the racism of slavery to continue, and it wasn't a century before we fought the American Revolution, round Two, and liberty lost.  Had our founding fathers stood true to the idea of liberty, and "all men are created equal, with inalienable rights" we might have a different President in the White House right now.  Maybe someone more like Alan West, Condaleeza Rice, or Herman Cain.

I am a libertarian, which means fiscally conservative and socially permissive.  Liberty means that people get to do things that you don't approve of, no matter how much you believe that it is "degrading to the culture" or "weakening our society."

If our society is so fragile that it is threatened by two men kissing in public, then how can we call ourselves any better than the Wahaabists?  You know what changed me from a "Conservative" with "Conservative Christian Values"?  Seeing what a theocracy really looks like with my own eyes.  And it does not look like Liberty.  It does not look like freedom.  It looked like petty and cruel men gathering power for themselves and forcing their own version of morality on people who did not want or desire to be ruled.


Lex32 said...

One less blog to read, thanks.

Anyone who does not recognize the Natural order in th Universe, let alone the one here on little ol' Earth which for all Time has had White, heterosexual males at the top... and who calls himself a Mercenary... begs the real question, Why was I ever here to begin with?

Anonymous said...

To quote (and paraphrase) Patrick Henry-

"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings....Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

John Locke said individuals have the right to "follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others.”

I think too many people aren't looking close enough on the issue of freedom. Freedom to chose how we live our lives, freedom to make choices without fear of reprisal, freedom to have access to the same things white hetero males take for granted.

People just want to be treated like people. Equal consequences and benefits for all.


Tobias said...

Makes me kinda sad that this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

Exl said...

I really don't understand what some people see the objective of FREEFOR as? Do you think we're some sort of organisation for the advancement of the white race and national socialism? I think if we're ever to get our objectives met then we need to suck up our problems and find the shit we do agree on, the rest we can hash out later over beers and a punch up after.

So for now recognize:

A. We aren't all going to agree about everything all the time. AM has written shit I disagree with but I sure as shit will not slander him for expressing an opinion.

B. Ignore the rather obvious trolls and absolute morons who think we should be stomping about in M43 field caps, praising Odin and muttering epithets about

C. We need to start cultivating FREEFOR as a cohesive group, we need to start moving away from the politics and start embracing training, fund raising and engineering.

If we can get our shit together NOW then we'll be able to affect change without ever flipping open a bullet box. Imagine that!

Anonymous said...

I think FreeFor is a myth. Using cool milspeak isn't the same thing as being a real thing. Last I looked J.R.R.Tolkien invented Elvish and Gene Roddenberry invented Klingons, and both those races as as real as unicorns, leprechauns, and "FreeFor".

But on the larger point, AM has nailed it. I don't want pastors, priests, and rabbis legislating, and I want a legislature, courts, and president running the show, not a priesthood and a High Priest.

I think a lot of what goes on in society at large is asinine, corrosive, and immoral. So the hell what? The same is true of TV. The solution with the latter is to turn it off, and with the former it's not to participate.

In neither case does a solution look like a pyre of books or a herd of Morals Police walking the streets with batts to to quite literally smack the Hell out of offenders.

That's why the "FreeFor" Wannabee Militia strike me as worse than the disease. There's far too many spending their energy drawing blueprints of guillotines and scaffolds, and composing enemies lists. I suppose that's what comes of them sleeping through world history. There's also the eerie grammtical resonance between FreeFor and Freikorps.


Don said...

Well said, AM.

I'm very open-minded about other people's morals, faith (not the same thing), ideas, and behavior so long as I am not infringed upon. But not so open-minded my brain runs out my ears.

Some people's idea of the "right way" to do things involves abusing my rights. These people must be stopped, at all costs.

Unless a behavior harms another person, not "hurts my feelings" harm but denying another of life, liberty, or property, that behavior must be allowed. The only laws a government should have are those which prohibit acts against another which do so.

That's why I joined the Marine Corps. I believed that these ideals were what this country was founded on, and I believed it was worth defending with my life. Foolish, I know, but I was 17, a service brat, and had seen some places where such ideals were just words on a paper. Much as I see in this country today.

I'll gladly fight for those ideals again, if needed. I fear that I will have to, soon.

Stardraigh said...

I want to thank you AM, for this post.

As someone who is a Christian, and comes from the LGBT community, and who blogs not quite in the patriot/liberty area, but in prepping, I get the same confusion and questioning when I tell others about, what to them seems to be, mutually exclusive domains. They aren't exclusive of each other.

It hurts when other persons(regardless of their beliefs) say I can't be responsible for myself or I can't have a relationship with god, or I can't be me despite me being me.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

In practice, here and now, the people who implement those rights are big into affirmative action and group-based entitlements. Your libertarian utopia would be nice. But it's not even a remote possibility. Most of us are reacting to reality as we know it, not discussing our ideal dreams. You aren't in charge at the Pentagon. Political generals are, and they answer to hard left politicians. As they should, if that's who the country elects.

Anonymous said...

Also, it's beyond disengenuous to compare the American right with the Taliban. Just plain dumb, like calling Bill Clintion a communist.

If you like our current government and media, if you think it's the best possible deal for America, fine. But don't pretend you care about MY rights.

Exl said...


I read your drivel. Twice. I don't quite understand what you're trying to achieve, your military skills, your thinking and your attitude are all millennia out of date. On the grand scale of things you're down there with the old person who tells cool war stories that you buy a beer to shut up.

You also seem to be getting ever so slightly antagonized that things are not going you way and here in lies the problem. You aren't able to control the narrative and you aren't able to steer things in a way that pleases you so you resort to drivel.

AncientRifleman said...

Please permit an old Infantry officer to point out that West remains an unrepentant war criminal, who signed on for the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA of 2012. If you must list blacks who might make an acceptable President, please look for another.

Anonymous said...

Political Correctness is not like a religion, it is a religion.

Try to escape the equality police, and from your writings your experience must be that you were water boarded into submission.

Great we can watch some homosexual laision in public and call it freedom. Bluntly speaking that is freaking stupid.

Freedom would be for all my gay friends who want to impose their moral order to move to Frisco, Vermont or Key West and act all revolutionary there, I'll take my pagan behind to APistan and keep my mouth shut, because I'm betting the christians are more tolerant of us pagan traditionalists than the supposed liberals who worship some nonsense called "equality."


Anonymous said...

Honestly AM, you may be culling your readership lately...but you're also attracting a lot of readers. FWIW, I'm firmly in agreement with you.

If I'm going to war to defend freedom, to put my life on the line and risk not seeing my wife and kids again by taking on a superior fighting force, then I want it to mean something. I will not consider creating a Christian state as something worth being killed over. It just isn't.

I'd much rather fight for a society where people can find their own way and people are free so associate with one another as they so choose. That is something worth my life.

Chuck said...

Since my previous comment apparently rated its own post on your blog, I guess I should make one last comment:

Call it what you want and cloak it in libertarian terms, what you advocate is not liberty, it is cultural marxism.

We are all born with the same rights given to us by our Creator. What you argue for here is not the freedom to exercise those God-given inalienable rights, but instead for special rights; and in the progressive language of identity politics to boot.

Your slip is showing, ma'am.

Parabellum said...


How is arguing for equal access to things like marriage "cultural Marxism"? How are they "special rights" when they are simply about the same rights?

Inquiring minds want to know


Bailey said...

Freedom is the ability to choose one's own prison. The rules and obligations that one accepts, that one will agree to live under, and the opportunity to select those that suit one, that is real freedom. Provided that those choices do not infringe on someone else, or cause hurt or inconvenience, one should be free to chart the course of one's own life.
In a time when corrective heart surgery can be performed on a fetus in utero; when greater raw computing power than was needed to run the Space Shuttle can be had for a few dollars and carried in your pocket; when HD imagery from Mars is received here on Earth faster than the results of the Olympics... we are still arguing over what church people should attend, who should sleep with whom, and whether it is right to 'allow' people to say what they want in public.
Honestly, this is as far as we have got since a fairly nice guy was nailed to a tree for suggesting how great it would be if everyone just minded their own business and got along?
Heads need to be removed from asses, most ricky-tick...

bibleophile2 said...

if 2 men kissing doesn't bother anyone, then in about 5 years, when all the pedephiles come out of the closet, you will defend their "right" to partake in that alternative life style? Don't think I'm kidding. A few years ago people were NOT kissing the same sex in public, and we thought it would NEVER happen. How are you Mr. AM, going to protect your sons when a Pedephile moves in next door and wants to have a relationshop with you little boy, because it is his 'right'?

Anonymous said...

how to deal with pedophiles 101 -
tape a 2 liter to the muzzle of a throw away pistol. Shoot them in the head. Carry on.
Pedophilia is not a right - equal rights for all under the law is good. Kudos to you AM.
Pedophiles are like dogs with rabies - put them down

CDP said...

Aesop said, "But on the larger point, AM has nailed it. I don't want pastors, priests, and rabbis legislating, and I want a legislature, courts, and president running the show, not a priesthood and a High Priest."

You should be very happy right now because we are run by a legislature, courts, and the president.

Looks like it is working out about the way it should when moral and virtuous people are not involved in government.


Anonymous said...


The lack of moral and virtuous people running things is neither the fault of the organizations I cited, nor of the designers of the organizations or the documents outlining their operation. When, in a democratic republic, someone complains about the folks running things, they're either a non-voter, a stupid voter, or out-voted.

The only question that leaves is which category you fall into, which you'll have to answer for yourself.

Recourse to how difficult it is to get what you want under the system will be served with cheese.

None of the three choices above necessitates storming the capitol and burning the system to the ground when one's wishes don't prevail, unless the banana is the country's official fruit, or one has an IQ that could be mistaken for a hockey score. Simply noting that the required diligence for maintaining equilibrium is a far more useful exercise of time.

Some 220ish years ago, bystanders asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government had been settled upon under the Constitution just drafted. His answer was, "A republic, if you can keep it."

I daresay there was little to fault in his assessment of human nature.


At the risk of, but once, rewarding your simian urges to share the treasures found in your diaper with everyone nearby, I suggest you go back to the playground, where your level of insults surely made you King of the Sandbox, if not the litterbox. It's not nearly as clever when all you can do to increase your odious fury is to type it again. In public among grownups, the unrestrained urge to call names and throw tantrums only demonstrates either the lack of a nap, or of any better tools to resort to for making a point than wetting oneself. The only box you haven't checked yet is "momma" jokes, so perhaps we should all be grateful for small mercies while you pause and regroup.

Weetabix said...

I'm all for liberty. I get a bit hesitant when people start discussing "rights" because what they all too frequently seem to mean is, "Some animals are more equal than others."

Toaster 802 said...

Here is a quote from a man, which taken to heart could solve most of the non-sense and obvious misdirection and divisiveness found on this entire running battle, if not most of the ills of mankind;

What the III Percent stands for;
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

--Thomas Jefferson

Buck up people, or you can continue this quibbling while kneeling at the edge of a mass grave.

Rick said...

The problem has not been that people don't want to let others do as they please. It's that people are not allowed to discriminate against any people of the aggrieved class based solely upon their behavior choice. I will let anyone do as they please, but there are consequences for those actions and quite often the people with the in your face lifestyle choices aren't willing to accept the response from the rest of society, so they demand the power of the state to eliminate the consequences. Same as work ethic and so many other ailments to our society. Equal outcome enforced at gunpoint by the state, not equal opportunity. If I don't want to be around people whose behavior I object to, I will not hire them and if the state says I have to, then we're going to have a problem. When some kids pull up in their car to get gas with very loud music blaring out of their stereo so everyone has to endure it, there's going to be a problem. Consequences.

AM said...


The response from the rest of society can be negative as hell for all I care as long as it doesn't end up making the second class citizens, or deprived of any of the rights of citizens.

Rule of law, not rule of bigotry.

Rick said...

As long as freedom of association allows people to not be forced to associate with people with objectionable behavior. Some may say it is bigotry and I will agree if it is based on skin color or even race but there is so much other behavior that is by choice that has caused so much discontent between people. The PC police say we can't be judgmental of another persons lifestyle choices yet most of the readers of this blog and so many other blogs are allowed to be judged by the PC police because we are not one of their aggrieved classes and by default, just because we have a different opinion, are labeled racists, homophobes, gun nuts, right wing conservative wack jobs, etc. You get my point. Tolerance is a two way street as well as a double edged sword. I through waiting for them to come around.

Exl said...

Aesop -

Your inane rant only leads me to believe my accusation is correct; that you are angry that you control the narrative on this blog. I also put it to you, reading your post back that you must operate your life by the motto "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." and I truly am baffled when it comes to trying to work out your motivations.

I also stand by my accusation that your skills are out of date, your thinking is out of date and your approach to life is out of date. Now, would you like that beer so that we can shut you up or are you going to continue to produce inane rants and mounds of drivel?

Rick said...

@ Parabellum
The marriage thing is a perfect example of how the norms of the bulk of society have been changed to force the bulk of society to accept as normal the whims of a very small minority who have chosen to live a lifestyle that the majority of people just want nothing to do with. They're fine with allowing these people to do as they please in private, but are not fine with them making a public spectacle of them selves. Very few people have a problem with allowing homosexuals to live together, but to call it marriage, which to Catholics is a Sacrament as is held in high esteem, is wrong. Be as gay as you want. I don't care. But don't force me to accept it as a normal lifestyle and don't legally change the definition of marriage that so many people hold in high esteem just to normalize your lifestyle choice. And it is a lifestyle choice.

Parabellum said...

Rick said:
"Very few people have a problem with allowing homosexuals to live together, but to call it marriage, which to Catholics is a Sacrament as is held in high esteem, is wrong. Be as gay as you want. I don't care. But don't force me to accept it as a normal lifestyle and don't legally change the definition of marriage that so many people hold in high esteem just to normalize your lifestyle choice. And it is a lifestyle choice."

First, prove it's a choice. I have yet to find someone who choses to be ostracized by so many of their loved ones because of something like this. I can't prove it's not a choice, and you can't prove it is, so be careful stating something as fact when you can't back it up.

Second, I have yet to hear any libertarian proponent of gay marriage talk about Catholics being required to perform marriages for gays. They don't believe it? Fine, don't perform it. However, there are a lot of faiths that don't view things the same way.

Third, there are differences in marriage and just living together. Besides the tax breaks for married couples, there are also "next of kin" situations which arise that homosexuals being permitted to be married solves for them as well.

Besides, why shouldn't they have the same opportunity to lose half their shit in a divorce that I have?

CDP said...

Aesop, in my statement did I blame the organizations or the designers? A non-voter, stupid voter, or out-voted? There are more categories than that! How about a concerned voter who sees the future of his progeny disappearing everyday into the fog of debt.
You can put me in the stupid category, I really don't care.
Did I say I was going to storm the capital and burn it down? And did I reveal any wishes? The only wish I have is to be left alone and to live in peace.
What is the diligence required to maintain equilibrium on a sinking ship? Be sure you wear a life preserve for that one.
What does it take to keep the republic? A moral and virtuous people maybe? Yet in your original statement you want those who teach such things vanquished from any of these roles in government. Are you suggesting that because one holds to a set of morals and virtues you don't approve of they should be silent and forced to adhere to your standard of morality and virtue?

Rick said...

That last part was actually pretty good. LMAO
No proof on anything but they can choose to not get all in your face with their choice and most people would not ostracize them. Besides, family will ostracize you for so many things anyway. Best to just bug out at 18 and set up shop on your own terms anyway.
Never said that Catholics had to perform marriages for gays but marriage between a man and a woman has been going on for way longer than any government and mostly as a religious ceremony. Government got involved in order to levy tax, as usual. Where was that separation of church and state thing back then? Also to make sure you didn't marry your sister or cousin. Hmmm. Lifestyle choice?
I thought civil unions took care of that next of kin issue, the legal red tape. Not good enough. Had to actually hijack 'Marriage' as an institution. They want red to be the new blue and will protest against everyone kicking and screaming until they get their way. Then they'll want it to be the new green because it will never be enough to be equal. They have to be better.
Divorce....excellent. Another new career choice now available to men.

Anonymous said...


You blamed none of the above. Nor is it an option. Neither is there a fourth option category. As a concerned voter with realistic concerns, you were out-voted by the stupid, which also leaves you out of that category. The wish to be left alone in peace pretty much goes out the window once anyone exists who wishes to not leave you alone. You can therefore maintain being left alone by defending your personal boundaries, or have peace at the expense of capitulation. Again, there is no Third Way Magical Force Field, and hasn't been since the dawn of civilization.

Due diligence on a sinking ship is two-fold: try to stem the leaks, and have a lifeboat handy in case you fail. Most people prefer to whine loudly but do neither. I don't suspect you fall ito that category. Far to many see the water shipping over the bow as an excuse to start selecting Those They Disapprove Of to start walking the plank, and sending scuttling parties belowdecks to drill bigger holes. I hope you don't fall into that cateory either.

But contrary to your assertions, I haven't suggested vanquishing any moral and virtuous people. I merely assert that people fighting a spiritual battle confine their activites to that theatre of operations, rather than seek to supplant the legislature with an altar and pulpit. So think long and hard about putting in charge of governing those whose default setting is "What does my personal God-voice tell me is right?" without recourse to things like natural rights and the expressed will of the people for some checks and balances.

You may get Billy Graham or Mother Teresa, or you may get Caligula or Ayatollah Imawannajihad. All those, and more, are moral and virtuous according to their internal understanding. And absent better foresight, anyone foolish enough to open that door deserves whichever one Fate plops on the thrones of power.

Once they quite properly round up and shoot you sister, wife, and daughter in the head at the local stadium for failing their standard of orthodoxy, it's a wee bit late to offer that lamest of excuses:
"B-But...that's not what I intended!"

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The Founders knew that lesson so well that they brooked not the slightest whit of suggestion that religious dogma dictate which side got to enter the halls of power. And they so distrusted those with power so intensely that they virtually hamstrung EVERY actor in the show under such competing and countervaling forces that absent near universal agreement, nothing substantial could ever be done.

Like nuclear power, in a democratic republic, the most important specifications are the shielding and control rods that block runaway chain reactions, and not what the plant is plugged into.

Therefore the last choice person to put in charge of the plant is someone with a twitch to meet God in the Hereafter as soon as possible.

Best Regards,

Parabellum said...

Rick said:
"I thought civil unions took care of that next of kin issue, the legal red tape. Not good enough. Had to actually hijack 'Marriage' as an institution. They want red to be the new blue and will protest against everyone kicking and screaming until they get their way."

FWIW, not every state has a civil union option.

Personally, my solution is to call anything performed by a justice of the peace, judge, etc a civil union and anything performed by a member of the clergy a marriage. Take government out of the definition of it at all and let the churches sort out who can get "married".

Rick said...

That is an excellent and wise idea!
Problem solved.

CDP said...


I do understand the powers that be will not leave me alone. It is a sad time when men who wish to live in peace cannot be allowed to.

I have no desire to see anyone perish, if anyone walks the plank I would have to go first. Scuttling the ship would put to much risk on destroying those whom I love most in life. All actions have consequences, some actions produce good consequences and some actions produce bad consequences. And those around us may well suffer form those consequences. As Grandpa used to say, 'best check the water before you dive in'.

But I will take one issue with you, if your 'God-voice' is truly the voice of God, then there is no danger of natural rights being stomped on. I believe one of the great problems in Christianity is we think we hear the voice of God when actually it is the voice of a god we have created in our own image.
My natural man is not nice and never played will with others. It would rather shot first and ask questions later, avoid mental exhaustion at all costs and do the most expedient thing as long as my will is fulfilled. However when I came to know Jesus the Christ, that man had to die and a new man created in the image of Christ had to come to life. I am called to have the love of Christ for all men without respect of position or prejudice. I may not like what they do but that still does not give me the right sentence them. In my opinion, judgment on sin has already been passed through the existence of God's moral law. So I cannot pass judgment but I can hand out the sentence if I so choose. And if I do that then I am acting outside the will of God and His Son Jesus. I am not called to hand out the sentence, no Christian is, only God can do that. The only time I can or will act is when the actions of another seek to harm loved ones, the defenseless, or myself. Then I am called to defend them and myself.

My neighbor may choose to live a harmful life style, I can pray for him, help him in anyway I can, and show him the love of Christ. But I have no right to force change upon him. Only God has that right (and God never forces men to change because He gave free will), and I have no right to take upon myself that authority. When I do so, I am acting upon my own prideful desires. I wish the whole world come to Christ, I can pray for them and love them as Christ has loved me, but I have no right to force them.

I never really understood 'rightful liberty' until I began my personal and intimate relationship with Jesus the Christ. Before Christ, my world was really totalitarian even though I believed in liberty. In Christ I found mercy, even though I deserved 'hell fire and damnation'. It was then that I understood that our Creator loved men so much that He even gave men the right to reject Him. That, my new friend, is unconditional love, and it requires rightful liberty.

May peace be upon you,

Anonymous said...

But if that God-voice inside ISN'T actually God, just one of the voices in one's head, all manner of mischief follows.

By all means, I want people free to listen to it. But before it becomes policy, I just want it run by the community of 300,000,000 of my friends and neighbors, and checked against the inherited wisdom of 6000 years of recorded history, to put it on the rack and check under the hood before we all jump in for a drive off the cliff.

Of course, if we applied the OT remedy for false prophets - death by stoning - we'd see a lot fewer applicants for the job.

Best Regards,