Enemy of the State - An Extremist Manifesto

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
Charles Austin Beard, American Historian, 1874-1948

For some of us, having our beliefs called to question is an uncomfortable experience. Coming from an acquaintance, it can be unnerving; coming from a stranger, it can feel like an assault. But, really - why should any of us feel uncomfortable when called upon to stand up for what we believe in? Is it because we lack conviction? Or is it because we don’t really have the courage or the knowledge to defend ourselves?

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

And in today’s popular culture where non-judgmentalism is the order of the day, the reflexive and safe response is to deny that you have any convictions at all. Especially if your convictions stand the slightest chance of refuting the prevailing liberal orthodoxy. And therein lies the rub: If you won’t stand up for the principles of individual liberty then who will? This is in fact what our erstwhile masters are counting upon. Here’s what’s at stake:

The prospects for a free society as our Founders envisioned it have never been as fragile as they are now. Past and present US administrations have pursued the systematic abrogation of the rule of law and the nullification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; despite occasional small victories in favor of what the Founders taught, the evidence for this is beyond dispute. If we are to successfully reassert our birthright of life, liberty and private property without violent revolution, then we must thread a narrow passage between the following likely outcomes for America:

America enjoys no special immunity to any of these outcomes. Consider that all of the foregoing social and political conditions exist in the world today; consider that there are those who are working with a will to effect precisely that sort of outcome here. This is a reality that the observant cannot deny without resorting to the worst sort of intellectual fraud. An intellectually honest and dispassionate look at these prospects suggests a high probability for social disorder and economic upheaval. Even though totalitarian Communism/Socialism collapsed worldwide in a series of often-spectacular failures - even though the prostrate condition of its few remaining practitioners virtually guarantees that it will not persist past the first half of the 21st century – the abject failures and horrors of totalitarian governments have not deterred the mankind-hating and the power hungry among us from pursuing that same course. Recent events suggest that the collapse of the world's existing democratic welfare states will proceed with shocking rapidity; they will either succumb from within to the Ponzi scheme of socialism or the steady encroachment of Islamic fascism. Most likely, the former will enable the latter in a single-generation one-two punch.

If we judge our own American public policy by its outcomes and its consequences (as well we should), then we would be obliged to conclude that such policies were formulated expressly to promulgate class and gender warfare, ignorance, passivity, racial division, poverty, envy, and hatred of the good for being good. As one caller to a talk radio show recently put it: “If my house is on fire and my neighbors are coming over with pails of gasoline instead of water, then I’d have to think they’ve got an agenda...”

And that’s precisely the sort of agenda and precisely the outcome desired by the Gramscian, Machiavellian Marxists who comprise our cultural elite. Yet, more than half of our fellow citizens openly applaud this course. You’ve seen their faces at the previous election year’s political rallies – faces aglow with the sort of rapture and worship that we haven’t seen since the last days of the old Weimar Republic in the 1930s.

A significant number of us aid and abet the Obamunist Marxist agenda by our silence and inaction. Your silence in the face of the oncoming tyranny is the silence of the damned. Judgemental, you say? Intolerant, you claim? Offended, perhaps? Then look elsewhere - this essay is not a 'values-neutral' zone, and you will surely be offended by its content.

Want to be even more offended? All of you have already made your choices. And there is no middle ground. As Ayn Rand put it in her 1941 essay, To All Innocent Fifth Columnists,

“There is no personal neutrality in the world today.” “Repeat that and scream that to yourself. In all great issues there are only two sides — and no middle. You are alive or you are dead, but you can't be "neither" or "in between." You are honest or you are not — and there is no neutral "half-honest." And so, you are against Totalitarianism — or you are for it. There is no intellectual neutrality.”

Sometimes the choices that we must make are just that Manichean, just that black and white. There can be no neutrality when it comes to dealing with those who demand other human beings' lives as sacrifices. That ultimate evil rests on the premise that your life does not belong to you, and that you do not have the right to live as you wish. This is the underlying premise of the modern American liberal agenda. It is as clear and as different as night and day, light and dark. That agenda is the road to hell.

Any economic/political/ethical system that treats people as if they were property or some sort of fungible asset is unspeakably evil – that notion hails from the dark side of human nature. We might laugh at the notion of a ‘dark side’, relegating that to mawkish science-fiction fables and dismissing it out of hand. But we would be wrong in doing so.

Any individual, institution or political entity whose ultimate argument is the barrel of a gun should and must be resisted – they’re on the dark side. Anyone who claims that the concepts of right and wrong amount to intellectual bigotry or that there is no such thing as an absolute human right to live - they’re on the dark side. Anyone who espouses a worldview whose unarguable and indisputable outcome has been the slaughter of millions and the enslavement and impoverishment of hundreds of millions more in the last century – they’re definitely on the dark side. Anyone who cheerfully advocates or participates in the murder of the most innocent of us all – the unborn – they’re on the dark side, too.

Those who oppose the dark side are best represented by those who truly believe that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as they were originally written were works of inspired genius. These documents still stand today the best guarantors of individual rights and liberty. Those of us who believe that our lives and our minds are sovereign, and that the fruits of our labors are not forfeit to the first thug who demands them at gunpoint – are in direct opposition to the dark side. Those of us who judge a man by solely by his competence and by his character – we stand against the dark side. Yet today, those of us who oppose the dark side of human and live these beliefs with conviction are called many things, vile and vicious things. But the vilest liberal epithet of all tags us as extremists.

From the point of view of the liberal fascist, an extremist is someone who objects to having his life controlled, whether by a single self-appointed tyrant or by the dictates of an entire elected mob. He is someone who recognizes his rights and is willing to defend them. He is someone who has read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and understands them. He is someone who upholds the ideals of the Founding Fathers because he knows that the underlying principles are the logical and proper foundation for a just and a free society. Above all, an extremist is guilty of the unpardonable crime of consistency. An individual of intransigent purpose and character is to the totalitarian social engineer highly dangerous. He is not willing to compromise his principles for the sake of "getting along." He disavows the alleged "good of others" as justification for the seizure of his property or the destruction of his life. He recognizes that need does not constitute a claim on wealth. He rejects Kant’s creed of the unearned reward and the unrewarded duty. He dismisses as absurd the notion that the pursuit of his own happiness is evil. He refuses to believe that life is guilt. He is an honest man who never consumes more than he produces. He knows that the most depraved sentence he can utter is: "Who am I to judge?" He knows that the second most depraved sentence he can utter is "Who am I to know?"

Yes, I am an extremist. I am the sort of man our erstwhile masters wish to attack, discredit and silence. It is for people like me that the current liberal context of ‘extremist’ was designed and invented, because such people resist control and manipulation. When you see the term "extremist" in the media or if you hear it spewing from the lips of the collectivist criminal filth currently inhabiting the White house, the implication is that the person so labeled is not ‘normal’. We now know that no less than the Director of Homeland Security considers those of us who disagrees with the policies of the current regime as ‘anti-American,’ or ‘anti-government’ extremists. Those who hurl the extremist epithet define as ‘abnormal’ anyone who refuses to compromise the premises of the foundation of their values. For the arrogant, self-congratulatory and guilt-ridden liberal elite, ‘normality’ is defined

· By their refusal to make a moral judgment – that is, to be "non-judgmental" or "tolerant". This is merely an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment. And an excuse for any manner of crime and atrocity.

· By their readiness to compromise their principles - or to deny that they have any at all - at the drop of a politically correct hat.

The fact that I insist upon thinking things through; that I exhibit resolute intransigence in the face of irrational disapprobation and ridicule; that I uphold and defend of a set of values based upon the standards of life and liberty- that now defines me as one of those dangerous extremists. As such an extremist, I oppose with every fiber of my being statism, socialism, collectivism, racism, altruism, internationalism, tribalism, unlimited democracy, pull politics, and the "New World Order;" - in short, I oppose any philosophy or ideology that aids and abets the genesis of tyranny. Since I view modern American liberalism and socialism in any of its various guises as the vilest of crimes against God, man, nature, justice and reason, I am therefore the sworn and avowed enemy of our present crop of moral, economic, and social interventionists.

The struggle is not merely one of political party vs political party. It is an error to persist in thinking in terms of Left vs Right, Republican or Democrat. The end points of the continuum really are:

George Orwell, in his classic work of totalitarian triumph and despair, 1984 claims that the ultimate end of power is – power. He says, "If you want a picture of the future of Man, it is a boot in a human face – forever." It matters little what label you attach to perpetrators of atrocity, democide and the murderers of human freedom. It matters little whether the boot in your face is on the left foot or the right foot.

Never forget that those who pose the greatest danger are those who would claim our lives as tribute to a vague and transient "public good." C. S. Lewis warns us in God in the Dock: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

So, by the standards of all leftists, liberals, socialists, collectivists, intolerant religious fundamentalists, statists, racists and any other advocates of coercive utopia - I am an extremist. And proud to be considered so. I’m proud to say that I'm simply incapable of the appalling intellectual dishonesty and abject moral and ethical failure required to sustain a collectivist point of view. It’s not a matter of disagreement with any particular policy of the totalitarian left - I challenge the entire range of their moral, ethical and philosophical premises.

· I do not advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government – but the time for that ‘animated contest’ is drawing nigh.

· I do advocate active and vigorous resistance to all forms of individual or institutionalized tyranny.

· I do not advocate the initiation of force, but I do advocate overwhelming force-in-kind retaliation.

· I do advocate active and vigorous resistance against the United Nations and all of its aims and goals.

· I do advocate the restoration of a Constitutional Republic, with the federal government defanged, muzzled, shackled and cast back into its constitutional prison.

When will you stand up and say 'no' to the next intrusion into your lives? What line must be crossed before you actively resist those who have arrogated to themselves the right to determine the terms of your existence? At what point will you refuse to sacrifice your lives and those of your children's to the statist monsters who claim them as property? At what point will you decide to stand strong and become an enemy of the totalitarian state?

Make no mistake about it – in the Ǿbama era, the killers have taken over - and they will eventually come for you, the ‘extremist’. History is my witness.

I say that I am already free, free by virtue of God, Man, nature, justice and reason and that anyone who attempts to enslave me or my family risks his own death. Here’s the throwdown: there can be no peace, no compromise, and no accommodation – ever – with anyone who views my life, my property, or my children as property. There can be no surrender to those who would take by force that which has been granted to me by my Creator.

I say that those who have labeled me as one of those ‘extremists’ have yet to learn the meaning of the word. But they will, and soon. As the late Barry Goldwater once said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.“

The final first-principles question is this: To whom does the world belong? Does it belong to extremists like us who wish to live free of coercion? Or does it belong to the killers without conscience – the dark side? Does it belong to those who uphold man's life as the standard of their values, or the dark-siders who uphold the standard of death?

Any individual, institution or political entity whose ultimate argument is the barrel of a gun should and must be resisted – they’re on the dark side.

Sorry, but all political entities by definition are upheld in the ultimate sense by force. It may or may not be justified force, but any political entity that does not have the force available will be overthrown by the first opposition able and willing to use force against it.

I am a mega-extremist! This line speaks for me completely:

...anyone who attempts to enslave me or my family risks his own death...

The police, the military, the CIA, FBI, UN, KGB, or any other person or entity who attempts to unlawfully usurp my freedom and enslave me will be met with fierce resistance to the point of my own demise. I will not be enslaved by tyrants. I would rather fight and die than not fight at all. If this post or any of the posts on FR are read by these entities, so be it. A free man is not afraid of any government or man. I am free because God allowed me to live. He died for my sins, and I will die to ensure that I remain free, if it comes to that.

As I've said in the past, however, I don't believe a plurality of the American public feels this way. Even if we wanted to bring about a show of force on our government, the turnout would likely be paltry. No one alive in this country knows the evil about to be unleashed, and they would be fine to accept it as long as they can continue to get to Facebook and watch American Idol

not true. Our nation was not founded on the idea of power retained at the point of gun. Our nation was *specifically* founded on the idea that when a government is destructive to the ends of the people, the people hve the right to abolish it.

They never argued that the US govermnent should maintain power via the gun. Thats Mao you’re thinking of.

Your response in #2 couldn’t be more incorrect in light of the founding principles set out in our nation’s birth documents.

For the larger part of our history we have adhered to those founding principles.

It is true we have slipped a few times - see, for instance, MacArthur/Washington, D.C./1930’s and some would offer the “Civil War” although unfortunately in that matter it was the South that opened armed hostilities.

In any event, DesertRhino, whose screen name suggests he has been there and done that, sorted it out for you.

Righto. The people of the United States retain the potential to use force (guns) to maintain their control over the government. Kind of the whole idea behind the Second Amendment.

In fact, the American Founders themselves did not rely exclusively on philosophical arguments in their revolution. They used force. Our Revolution grew out of the barrel of a gun, as do all revolutions. That’s why they call them revolutions, because they forcibly overthrow the existing institutions and are by definition illegal in terms of those institutions.

Of course any people have the right to abolish an existing government that no longer meets their needs. However, to do so will, with very rare exceptions, require the use of force.

Odd that this piece should lead with a quotation from Charles A. Beard--that revisionist historian whose works were used in teaching a distorted view of America's history to young Americans for decades.

His reinterpretation of the Founders motives in establishing this bastion of liberty can be seen in those in leadership positions today who claim we have a "flawed" Constitution--one which must be "changed" to be in tune with the times.

Sorry, but all political entities by definition are upheld in the ultimate sense by force.

True enough if that is as far as you care to look. Taken in the context of 'the consent of the governed,' it isn't quite the same thing.

Charles A. Beard:

In response to #11, you're correct. The quote does apply today. It's still ironic, however, that Beard, whose revisionist history contributed to the world view held by many of those we must oppose today, is quoted within this context.

That he said it, when he knew that he was misrepresenting the motives and aims of the very Founders he was quoting, makes his an even more interesting and very twisted comment.

Yes, he may have been considered, in fact, a "very dangerous citizen" if he selected certain "phrases" from the Founders in order to attribute motives to them which did not accurately reflect their intentions in establishing this great Republic.

That does not, in any way, make it a less accurate statement today about how the current Administration demonizes Tea Partiers who simply use the Founders' words to advocate a return to the Founding principles. I just found it strange that Beard, of all people, would be quoted in this setting.

I too am an extremist...

As such an extremist, I oppose with every fiber of my being statism, socialism, collectivism, racism, altruism, internationalism, tribalism, unlimited democracy, pull politics, and the "New World Order;"

The Resister lives on!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.