You should have listened to me a year ago when I started calling it the funniest end of civilization ever (now with caps, exclamation points coming soon!!!).

That way, you would have been laughing all along and it would have been easier to accept.
It's only as the actual end gets nearer that it's not so funny.

Dude, do what you know is right, and be content with that.

Live free or die.

Events have a way of happening.

The left-wing elite is most definitely acting they will never need to face the voters again. I don't think that's because they're fascists implementing the final part of the revolution. I think it's because they genuinely, truly believe, in good faith, that their ideas are so self-evidently brilliant, that no one could possibly oppose them unless they are (1) stupid to the point or retardation and (2) under the influence of some fanatical Christian preacher-type.

The Chicago types in the Obama administration are merely grabbing with both hands while the grabbing is good. But the Ivy League elite are genuinely convinced of their self-declared brilliance.

Eric,

First of all, you are doing what you can, with your fine blog, and that is all anyone can expect. My message wasn't aimed at you in particular. I have been thinking a lot about this issue recently, and that post was a very condensed subset of the whole idea, triggered by that horrendous video.

This is not really about the Republicans. It's about all of us having a constitutionally-limited republican form of government. A government of laws and not men. The Republicans could benefit from the current situation (if the elections aren't rigged and they get their act together), but the issue goes much deeper than party at this point. And it's an issue where timing is critical. The defenders of our traditional form of government cannot use violence or blatantly illegal actions first (but see below). Yet the problem is, if we just wait and hope, then if/when the time comes, we will be unprepared and unable to effectively resist.

Every avenue of overt peaceful resistance (including you) has a big fat target painted on it. Do you not doubt that every Tea Party organizer/blogger, independent media person, think tank, political organization, etc. has not been completely identified by the FBI (our very own political police, check their history), and could be "disappeared" within a few days of the regime making their move, decapitating any potential opposition?

The reason why nuclear war never broke out between the US and the Soviet Union was because of the deployment of a credible second-strike capability by both sides. If the Soviets launched against the US, even though the country would be destroyed, we had enough weapons dispersed though the nuclear triad (SAC bombers, land-based missiles, and most importantly, the submarine based missiles) that it was impossible for the Soviets to destroy enough to prevent a equally devastating response. This kept the cold war "cold" until the end.

In the same sense, we must "think the unthinkable" concerning the domestic situation. We need a "second-strike" ability that cannot be interdicted by their first overt move. Some subgroup must go quiet, go underground, linkup and prepare for the worst (cell structures, cached unregistered weapons, covert lines of communications, all sorts of precautions and preparations that I personally do not know enough about to even describe - i.e. it probably needs help from loyal covert intelligence people, and other people still currently within government - despite the risk.) All this is dangerous, and will attract notice from the powers-that-be, and it is inevitable that some portions of the network will be compromised. It will be messy and paranoid, trust will be scarce.

If worst does not come to worst, (or the existence of such a network causes a our opponents to hesitate - i.e. the deterrence principle), then, despite the risks and sacrifices, the overall outcome is good. On the other hand, like a flashlight saved for a power outage, if we need this resistance organization, we will really need it.

The main point is that individuals cannot oppose organizations alone, despite the nobility of the cause. Only organizations can successfully oppose other organizations, especially in the modern age. Which is why individuals simply legally buying guns and ammo, or forming 1980s-style above-ground militia groups, is not enough for a successful outcome in the worst case.

My use of chess metaphors was deliberate. We need to think about things more than one move deep. And we cannot count on any tradition of good behavior to restrain our enemies. Consider the Jews being herded into the gas chambers, being told soothing lies about how they needed a "shower" to get rid of the lice. To the end, they counted on some basic level of decency from their oppressors - and died as a result. "Never again" is a slogan that is not just for the Jews - we should all take it to heart.

Anon,

No reason to rush things along. If it gets to that point (probability low - not zero) what ever organization needed will spontaneously arise.

Stocking up on canned goods and ammunition is always good -- if the power goes out you can eat beans till you kill yourself a bear.

In the meantime, smacking our anointed leaders around in a few more town hall meetings may make them think twice about the extent of their "mandate."

Stocking up on canned goods and ammunition is always good -- if the power goes out you can eat beans till you kill yourself a bear.

In the meantime, smacking our anointed leaders around in a few more town hall meetings may make them think twice about the extent of their "mandate."

I think it will be a close race:

Between the left trying to end honest elections and throttle opposition. The opposition is trying to break the choke hold while that possibility still remains.

Clearly some on the left think they will never be ousted in fair elections. i.e. they are simply superior.

That group usually believes the past failures of socialism prove nothing, it just wasn't done right. This time will be different.

Others think fair elections allow the other side, which is bad by definition, to mislead the people and again impede the utopia.

After all, they reason, is it better to have trivial honest elections or to stay on the path which will end all the discords and woes of mankind?

And others just think some variety of a socialist or communistic society is better than the alternatives. They aren't sure why but it sounds good.

A right wing in US politics really doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. There is instead an opposition which is confused and chaotic and almost leaderless.

So I no longer use the term "right" in a political sense.

Eric, the silver lining is that when a party is out of power, it's more open for transformation. "National greatness" aka "compassionate" conservatism is what we had for the last eight years, and it's a bust. Its days are over, at least for the foreseeable future.

Now, I personally think that the best way the Republicans can come back is if they build rebuild their party based on liberty and the Constitution. Who's talking about those two subjects today? Not the Democrats, and not the Republicans...but they resonate strongly with a lot of rank and file Americans right now.

That would enable us to build a coalition where social conservatives and libertarians could get along well enough. It would answer most of the questions that critically divide the two factions in terms of states' rights...which is the whole point of the federalist principle to begin with. And we'd then have to focus on dismantling those parts of the federal government that inhibit federalism.

So to kind of summarize, I think the "constructive" thing you could be doing is talking about where the right goes from here, what kind of "coalition" we need to build both in order to get something done and do something good.