"…So far, other than the report itself, by the Brennan Center for Law and Justice at New York University, there’s been little—or little-noticed—response. "
You heard it here first folks. PeoplesWor|d is sharing some groundbreaking news that nobody else is even willing to report!
One day somebody will physically retaliate against the genocidal admins here.
get your weapons ready
Not sure how much I can trust that source. And no right-winger will ever accept it either.
Anyone with a more direct link to a source about this?
That’s why I’ve started calling the country the Fascist States of America.
Anyone who is surprised hasn’t been paying attention.
Fucking Russia and CCP run China in the USA. That is some 3rd World crap right there and the Blue States should tell Canada to annex them ASAP.
If you are at all surprised by this I got some beach front property in Montana to sell you.
What do you mean “revealed” as if this is news? I thought this was the plan the whole fucking time.
They were revealed in 2021.
Arguably as early as 2016.
Buy guns. Buy ammo. Help others acquire guns and ammo.
Train. Help others train.
Form networks.
Let’s say 500 of your closest neighbors and friends all buy AR-15s with the best optics money can buy and all the green tips you can eat. And you all secretly spend 60 hours a week drilling in modern combat.
What are you going to do against a tank? Or a jet? Or just artillery fire? And “hit and run” tactics don’t work when there are cameras on every street corner and it is a trivial problem to track people back to their suburbs.
If The Right To Bear Arms were actually a threat to those in power then you can be damned sure it would have been repealed faster than a kindergartener can cry for their parents.
Resistance is important and I recommend you go to protests and actually talk with the organizers. No, not the ones who are thinking up catchy slogans or what cool costumes everyone can wear. The old hats. The ones who are actually pulling people however many steps back from the curb they need to be or who are looking for idiots with guns who will get everyone killed. Make some friends and go from there.
But all you are doing with “buy guns and train” is the same bullshit that republicans have been getting off on for decades. White people get to take hostages and occupy buildings. But in the eyes of the fascists? We’re all n*****s.
What are you going to do against a tank? Or a jet? Or just artillery fire?
I’m going to say the same thing I say to everyone that brings this up thinking they’ve hit on some infallible logic.
Small arms are all you need to eliminate people at the top of command structures, thus collapsing those command structures. A sniper named Simo Häyhä had over 500 confirmed kills during WW2. His job was basically to find and kill officers. He survived the war. You can also look at the Vietnam War. The U.S. was technologically superior to the Vietnamese. We still lost and went home without our mission accomplished. Same thing in the Middle East. Never actually accomplished our goals. Went home. Because it’s really hard to deal with enemies using guerilla tactics with typical firearms.
You don’t seem to understand that protests, while important, don’t make fascists stop being fascists. Force has always been required to put down fascist movements. If this goes far enough there will come a time when protests don’t matter, at all. When that time comes are you gonna let a fascist put a bullet through the back of your skull or are you gonna pick up a firearm and do something? Can’t do that if you don’t have firearms. Can’t do that if you haven’t trained. Can’t do that alone.
If this escalates far enough and people don’t do as I suggested, there will be no resistance beyond protests, which won’t be enough.
I literally just pointed out the “grab a gun and scream wildcats” fallacy below. Again, what is going to happen? The republicans will have experienced so many losses that they, what, pull out of the US and leave it to The Insurgents?
When that time comes are you gonna let a fascist put a bullet through the back of your skull or are you gonna pick up a firearm and do something?
Again, what are your rifles and even homemade molotovs going to do against tanks and drones and artillery? Sure, you’ll kill a few soldiers on the ground. They will then pull back and bomb the fuck out of you. Or they’ll just hop in the APC a shocking number of police stations have and run you down while watching tiktok on their phones
As for “just snipe officials”: Wow. It really is THAT simple.
By the way, have you considered heading over to Gaza and teaching the Palestinians how to resist? They got guns and they got will. So really, the only problem is they aren’t sniping the right people and killing enough soldiers per day for Israel to pull out, right? I mean, it isn’t like there is a difference between a “peace keeping” force and occupiers who want to eradicate all resistance, right?
Then give up and die. That is your choice. I don’t really care. You aren’t useful in the scenario we’re talking about so I’m not too concerned about what happens to you. You’re dead weight.
People who push this kind of thinking still think warfare is carried out and progresses like it did in the Napoleonic era: two orderly opposed fronts clashing head-to-head in theaters with well-defined boundaries - where the adversary with more guns/people/resources win. Because more guns/people directly equates to military power, right?
These folks would do well to spend even the slightest amount of time learning about fourth generational, guerilla war. The fact that bullets ping off of tank armor does not disprove guerilla war.
Let’s take this meme back a couple hundred years and cast you as a counter revolutonary American at the onset of the revolutonary war.
/*Wants to have muskets to fend off british empire
/*british empire:
Starts to seem silly when you realize even our founding fathers were doing guerilla warfare not long ago.
During the American Revolutionary War/Napoleonic War, do you know what a local militia with muskets or even breach loading rifles were good for? Sending into the meat grinder and taking out with artillery.
The ONLY time The Holy Second Amendment was ever a threat to a government was, funny enough, “The Wild West” in the US. That brief window where logistics made deploying the military difficult but everyone and their mother had repeating rifles and pistols and could even get a gatling gun for not TOO much money. Which, funny enough, led to the rise in what were basically PMCs to take out said ruffians and has persisted to today in the form of the over-militarized police force and the idea that you need a full kill team in every village.
As for “Just fight a guerilla war”: I am not interested in the American Revolutionary War (even though all the same arguments hold true…). The US and Russia have both bled and eventually abandoned countries like Afghanistan as the losses became too high to justify the occupation. But basically any time there was a stand up fight, they won overwhelmingly because of things like Helicopters, Tanks, and Artillery.
But then you look at groups like ISIS and warlords in Africa and the chaos that was left in the wake of South America. THOSE forces defeated their guerillas. Why? Because the occupying force actually gave a shit about the land and wanted to keep it. And they didn’t care about public opinion on what they were doing (see also: Israel’s genocide). Some kids run out of the woods, shoot a few people, scream “WILDCATS”, and start macking? Cool. Go round up a dozen people in the town square and execute them. And make it clear that if said wildcats aren’t turned over by next week, another dozen people will be executed. See how fast support for the guerillas goes away. Even better, you know they are hiding in the suburbs near Delancy Street? Set up a perimeter and go door to door executing people until you find them.
Which gets back to your super timely example from the 1700s. Where the Brits basically said “Fuck it, we don’t care” due to the colonies being a whole ocean away and increasing unrest in India. And… India was a LOT more valuable than a bunch of jackasses who didn’t want to pay taxes.
But hey. I am sure with your rifles you can totally lead a guerilla war that makes the republican government abandon the United States because casualties are too high, I guess? It worked for Captain Soap in Call of Duty maybe?
Buddy.
It sounds like your entire argument is “Do nothing because what’s the point?”
You can do nothing and die if things escalate too far. That’s your choice. The rest of us will do something. Because in the face of living under fascism, why the fuck wouldn’t we?
An intelligent person would prepare for that eventuality. A dumb person spends their time throwing their hands up and trying to dissuade others from preparing.
Yes. An intelligent person prepares for eventualities. But in a manner that actually makes a difference.
If all you want to do is buy a bunch of guns and masturbate furiously, go for it. Hell, the republicans will probably think you are one of them since that is indistinguishable from what all the gun nuts say.
If you want to actually make a difference and resist? Like I said. Talk to the old hats at those protests. We are thinking this through and actually studying past events. We just aren’t talking about it on a public social media site where all we know about the admins are they bent over backwards to cover their asses when luigi allegedly blapped that guy.
Yes. An intelligent person prepares for eventualities. But in a manner that actually makes a difference.
But that’s not what you’re doing. Your only suggestion thus far is to protest. I’ve already made it clear to you that if a fascist regime becomes too entrenched then protests mean nothing. And your plan beyond that is to give up and die and try to convince others to do the same.
Protest, by all means, while you can. What I’m talking about, since my very first post, is preparing for what happens if protests don’t work. You don’t have a plan for that, other than giving up. I mean, you keep talking about “talk to the old hats”, like that actually means something. Do you want to elaborate? Cuz beyond protesting it seems like “talk to the old hats” means organize an actual resistance, which is exactly what I’m talking about.
What are you going to do against a tank? Or a jet? Or just artillery fire? And “hit and run” tactics don’t work when there are cameras on every street corner and it is a trivial problem to track people back to their suburbs.
I agree with everything except this. Those cameras are getting smashed day one. Jets and artillery are very unlikely to happen in our scenario here. APCs and AFVs? Oh absolutely, and we don’t even need to have the military for that, even your podunk PD has armored vehicles now. But they’re not as durable as a tank. Wheeled ones are more susceptible to mobility kills. Building dragon’s teeth and porcupines isn’t hard. And there are plenty of IED and urban warfare guides available, even from the US military…
- You very much underestimate how many cameras are out there or how reachable they are
- If you start building dragons teeth in bumfuck Wisconsin you are going to get mortared.
- If you start building dragons teeth in DC you are getting droned.
Then die.
It sounds like if this possible future came to pass you’d just be a liability and a drain on our resources.
When voting with your voice doesn’t work, and voting with your money doesn’t work, all that left to vote with, is lead.
So when that doesn’t work, then what?
If lead isn’t working, you haven’t used enough of it. Can’t have a problem if the problem-makers are all dead to a man. Or if necessary, to a child.
What if the problem makers are holed up in a bunker thousands of miles away remotely sending drones to kill you? How much lead does that take?
I suppose in that case you lay siege and starve them out. Cut off all materials in our out. Supplies run out, and so do million dollar weapons, eventually. Ideally it never gets to that point but what other recourse do you have to stop the march of dystopia?
You’re going to lay siege from thousands of miles away while being killed by autonomous death robots?
Okay, good luck.
Link seems to be broken for me…
Fixed
That was a very weird article…
To the point I googled the source and apparently it’s a 90 year old Maxist-Leninist newspaper. Which kind of explains the writing style and lack of sources.
They do have “left” lean, but it always feels off because those people also are super into authoritarianism. So it’s less about presenting enough for someone to understand and form an opinion, and more like telling their readers an opinion along with a few facts that were found after the fact to be used to defend it.
To be clear; Trump’s 1500% going to try and steal the election, but everyone already knows that. There is zero new information on the article and I’m pretty sure everyone that didn’t vote for trump has came to the same conclusion…
Marxist/Leninists writing just always gives me something like the uncanny valley feeling. I don’t care how it’s dressed up, or if the person speaking/writing agrees with my existing opinion, I can’t fucking stand them. I guess it’s “the ick”
Better sources have been covering all of this for months already.
Good news, you’ll never have to feel the ick of an equitable economy or being part of a society that the wellbeing of its citizenry over quarterly GDP here in the west.
Phew amirite? Enjoy capitalist paradise!
Nah. I’m an actual communist
My policy positions make Vladimir Lenin look like Hillary Clinton.
My problem with Marxist-Leninists, is the authoritarianism, which is the worst part about trump too.
Does it make sense now?
I think authoritarianism is bad, and even if an authoritarian agrees with me on every aspect of policy, I’ll never be on their side.
It’s a difference at a fundamental level.
My problem with Marxist-Leninists, is the authoritarianism
So you’re an “actual communist” who never bothered to actually read anything Marx or Engels wrote.
Anything like anarcho-syndicalism?
Not even sure what that is, but anyone wanti g anarchism likely doesn’t know what that means.
Like, if there’s anarcho-luddittes out there who thinks we should completely destroy society and go back to living in the forest in tribes of ~150 people…
I wouldnt agree with them that it’s the best path, but I wouldn’t consider them hypocritical because at least they understand where anarchism would lead and are being honest about it
For everything else with “anarcho” tacked on the front, I feel it’s safe to say I’d disagree with them without looking into what they’re about.
I did go ahead and Google that before hitting reply, just to be safe since I honestly hadn’t heard that term before.
And that’s just putting trade unions in charge, which would end up the same as any other ruling class.
I’m saying there shouldn’t be a ruling class at all.
Claims to be a communist, but has no clue about anarchists. Many of whom are actual communist/Marxist. Sure buddy, you’re a super mega communist.
Anarcho-syndicalism advocates for a society without hierarchical structures, achieved through the power of worker-led trade unions BTW.
Oh yes that old capitalist Chestnut smearing the ludites. Very communist of you. Do you know who the Luddites were? How based they were? Do you understand how badly we actually need luddites right now?
You would really do yourself a service, not by reading dense tomes of theory. But by reading a few freaking basic paragraphs of description on a Wikipedia page.
Anarcho-syndicalism advocates for a society without hierarchical structures
No, it replaces what’s currently at the top with a trade union…
Something where people vote for their leaders. It would be the same as we have now almost immediately.
Are you even in a union? Do you have any idea how they work or how often corrupt assholes get leadership positions for the sole purpose of personally enriching themselves?
Like, I know I just said that I’m aware I underestimate others but…
C’mon man, you legitimately don’t understand how that would result in a system identical to any other party based political system?
You don’t understand how fast they’d throw their origins out the window?
No, it replaces what’s currently at the top with a trade union.
Something where people vote for their leaders. It would be the same as we have now almost immediately.
Even if it did it would literally be better than what we have now. But no that’s incorrect. It’s literally about doing away with what is considered the top. And replacing it with local answerable flat representation. Using the power of labor and the Unions to achieve that for Syndicalists. Or by other means for the other subset of anarchists, direct action etc.
Are you even in a union?
SEIU, mother was with the teamsters and my father with the pipelines.
Do you have any idea how they work or how often corrupt assholes get leadership positions for the sole purpose of personally enriching themselves?
Yes, and? So are you advocating to abolish unions just like the capitalists? Not even the nutty Leninist do that. They just rig things to get their puppets in place. Corruption can happen anywhere, with anyone. Corruption isn’t an inherent feature of unions.
Like, I know I just said that I’m aware I underestimate others but…
C’mon man, you legitimately don’t understand how that would result in a system identical to any other party based political system?
You don’t understand how fast they’d throw their origins out the window?
You don’t underestimate others. You far overestimate yourself. The whole point of anarchism. From the most extreme to the most milquetoast. Is literally doing away with those unanswerable hierarchy protected leaders. Flat, local, minimal governance of the consenting. Nothing more, nothing less.
It’s got nothing to do with your other straw man of destroying society. Nothing at all. It’s about not having a fascistic national federal government forcing their whims down your throat through a monopoly on violence. It’s about some shit head governor who’s never been to your town and doesn’t give a shit about your town not being able to do the same to your town. It’s about those who actually use the means of production having a say on them. It’s about you and your neighbors deciding the rules you live by. And not someone that you have no say in at the state or federal level.
If you actually were a communist, you’d understand this. Especially if you were anti-authoritarian. Most anti-authoritarian communist realistically are going to tend to align anarcho communist. The sad thing is though. I think you are actually capable of understanding this. But contrary to the username you’ve chosen you actually just don’t give a shit.
Thank you for taking up this discussion. I am not able to make long posts at this time. I appreciate you.
Can you link the better sources?
The two big things it references:
Save act:
The SAVE Act would require that individuals registering to vote show “documentary proof of United States citizenship,” including when they re-register after moving to a new state.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/02/will-save-act-prevent-married-women-from-registering-to-vote/
And an EO from 3/25 (that they didn’t provide the name of:
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a sweeping executive action to overhaul U.S. elections, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and demanding that all ballots be received by Election Day
https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-news-updates-3-25-2025
They both do the same thing, and happened months ago…
But to be fair, I often overestimate how much a random person remembers. They’re not wrong with their opinion on what all this means.
It’s just the way they present it often feels too much like trump for the average person to listen.
Because of all the reasons I said in the last comment.
Beginning to question the inherent wisdom of “Normal transition of power” when Biden handed the keys of the kingdom to a guy who openly planned to lock all the doors and shoot the next guy planning to walk through them.
But hey, I guess it would have been against the rules not to meekly empower a fascist dictatorship.
I love these comments that always place the blame on Biden, instead of you know, the actual fucking fascists. JFC.
I think it is because you can’t reason with these idiot fascists, but we could have reasoned with Biden.
For the record, the “actual fucking fascists” didn’t materialize during this last election, or the one before it, or the one before it… etc. I remember when the dems campaigned on “no human is illegal” in 2016 but by time of this last cycle, they were capitulating on immigration and the border to attract the elusive moderate republican to vote democrat… a strategy that failed our democracy in the end.
“How dare you break the laws - we should have broken the laws to stop you from breaking the laws.”
All Biden needed to do was have Trump assassinated - as an official presidential action, it would have been perfectly legal according to Trump’s precedent.
Follow that up with a “Y’all see why this is maybe not the greatest idea to give the ol’ prez this much power? Repeal it, then I’ma fuck off to some beach somewhere.”
Boom. Democracy saved, all without breaking the law.
Not sure I get it, but user name do indeed check out.
Probably the pertinent bit: “Sulla revived the office of dictator, which had been dormant since the Second Punic War, over a century before. He used his powers to purge his opponents (“Sulla’s proscription”), and reform Roman constitutional laws, to restore the primacy of the Senate and limit the power of the tribunes of the plebs. Resigning his dictatorship in 79 BC, Sulla retired to private life and died the following year. Later political leaders such as Julius Caesar followed the precedent set by Sulla with his military coup to attain political power through force.”
Dude made himself dictator, reformed laws, purged his political rivals then gave it all up to go live in his villa once he felt he’d achieved his goals of putting the republic back on the rails. Julius Caesar later remarked that the one mistake Sulla made was that he gave up the power he had seized.
This, but unironically.
What a stupid argument. Like Biden refusing to cede power to an elected opponent wouldn’t be one of the largest abuses of power in US history.
It would.
It would also be several orders of magnitude less harmful than everything Trump’s done.
OMG no 🤣. It would have sent the nation into chaos!
Which would have been several orders of magnitude less harmful than everything Trump has done (which includes sending the nation into chaos anyway).
blue maga is ridiculous. 🙄
How would it have been breaking the law? According to the Supreme Court long before the election, any act a President does while in office is legal.
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right, and just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. It’s illegal to donate or hand out food from your garden to the homeless - as pertains to the law stating that it’s illegal to provide a better service than the government.
Uh huh.
I hope you are being cheeky by saying ‘beginning to’, it was immensely obvious this was the plan going back to, at bare minimum, about a year before the election, when Trump just kept saying he was gonna serve 3 terms, his supporters wouldn’t have to vote again, etc.
So what. You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship. Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.
You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship.
[citation needed]
Congratulations, you just discovered the paradox of tolerance.
And, yeah, essentially, in order to survive, a democratic society cannot allow those who seek to destroy it to participate in the democratic process.
Nope. I have been aware of the paradox of tolerance for awhile and its a little shoehorning to put this situation into it. Your talking about a case of allowing an elected official to take office not tolerating speech.
An elected official who repeatedly stated and demonstrated his intention of preventing any future elections and destroying democracy.
An elected official, therefore, who should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place (this isn’t the only reason he shouldn’t have been allowed, of course, in a sane country he’d also been unelectable due to his criminal record, lack of any semblance of mental health, and intellectual insufficiency, but it’s the most important).
Ill agree he should not have been able to run but that was a failure of congress or in other words other people elected under the democracy to office. Not allowing him to run would have been great but not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous.
not allowing him to take office when elected would be disastrous
It would have been many orders of magnitude less disastrous than the alternative.
Sure, cutting off your cancerous hand would’ve been traumatic. But survivable.
Now, however, said hand is so far up your arse that it’s ripped apart your colon in several places and you’re bleeding to death while experiencing horrible agony, and spraying all your neighbours with blood and feces.
You could have recovered from getting rid of Trump, but there’s no coming back from what you’ve allowed him to do to your country, and the world.
No. No it would not have. Your talking about doing something trump has not done yet. It would accelerate the problems by putting us at worse case in january of 2025 rather than in late 2026.
It has always been a dictatorship of the rich.
This is just taking the mask off.
That’s right, if it’s allowed to happen, it’s pretty hard to come back from that
I wanted the traitor coward Merrick Garland to do his motherfucking job and prosecute that POS and throw him in federal prison while making him completely unable to appear on any ballot.
Thanks for asking.
Garland did what he was hired to do. He slow walked the investigations so biden could run against trump again because biden knew he couldn’t beat anyone better.
You wanted a dictatorship to stop a dictatorship.
Given the current state of affairs, I’m not clear how a Permanent Biden-o-cracy was supposed to be worse.
Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.
Well, thank god we don’t officially lose our Democracy for another eighteen months.
its worse because it would be 18 months sooner. Its like climate change. It won’t help if we were at 5 degrees now instead of 1.5. That would not fix it.
Its like climate change.
Weird you would mention that in the context of a presidency that’s effectively set himself to the task of nationally Rolling Coal.
its hard to mention anything he is not making worse.
Once the normal transition of power is not followed its game over for our democracy.
Once people who’ve sworn to end democracy are given the power to end democracy, then it’s game over for democracy.
Preventing a corrupt criminal who’s a known agent of a hostile foreign powers from becoming president is a healthy thing to do.
If the electorate in a democracy want to end democracy, then it’s game over. You can’t save that.
Unless the democracy has systemic flaws that allow it to be captured by minority rule, and that minority voting block disenfranchises enough of the opposition to take all power from the majority.
This wasn’t a democracy in anything more than name before the election.
As would be preventing officials voted into office in a democracy but sooner. There is still a chance as of now as he has not stopped elections yet.
nah, it’s over. It was gg for elections in November, and so many people like you didn’t realize this. It’s to late to prevent this. All we can do now is rebuild.
We realize and so do you since you talk of rebuilding.
Probably what will happen is anyone who might challenge them will suddenly be arrested on Trumped-Up charges.
biden was happy as long as netanyahu was happy.
I disagree with Biden’s handling of the transition, but it’s definitely internally consistent with his beliefs. He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
I would not be surprised if part of the intention here was to maintain legitimacy during the initial transfer, so that when the monsters refuse to do the same, it will lend legitimacy to a global response to assist the people in reclaiming their democracy.
Now, you could also call that ‘passing the buck’ and… Well, yes. He did seem to do too much of that, imo. Or not enough, depending on how you look at it.
He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
Hence backing Al Qaeda in Syria, fleecing Afghanistan of it’s currency reserves to kick off a famine, propping up a military dictatorship in The Philippines, all while continuing a 70 year old illegal blockade of Cuba? Never even mind the Holocaust in Gaza.
Come on, dude. The US has always been playing Calvinball with Rule of Law. If Biden made noises about it, that’s just him delivering the company line one last time to the liberal rubes.
when the monsters refuse to do the same, it will lend legitimacy to a global response to assist the people in reclaiming their democracy.
That’s pure cope.
Biden bent over backwards for the Silicon Valley mega-donors practically from day one, and they took full advantage until he was used up and disposed of.
He wasn’t secretly plotting a resistance movement, he was carving up the country in advance so that Trump could sell it off easier.
To clarify, I am not a Biden supporter by any means. In fact, I place a lot of the blame for the fucked state of the world right now squarely on his shoulders. It would not be a stretch to say that I harbor a deep resentment for the man’s work.
However, I do think there’s a lot to learn from his career. Because as far as I can tell, the man genuinely seemed to be trying to improve the world for the average person. Thus, he clearly fucked up catastrophically, and there’s a lot to learn from how and why.
The US disregard of the Rule of Law historically seemed to be one of his personal bugbears. At least from what I’ve seen of his accounts and those around them. I won’t judge you if you want to discard him as a bumbling hypocrite, but we can learn the most from failure.
He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
The most prominent feature of Bidens administration was it’s wholesale rejection of global rule of law in support of genocide.
global response to assist the people in reclaiming their democracy.
Why would the globe want to restore the “democracy” that kept bombing them?
He really, really wanted the global rule of law to work.
No, Biden did not. He actively broke it by financing Israel’s genocide against international and domestic law.
Sorry US law, that’s where the US can do whatever it wants in the rest of the world but at home there is a rule book (allegedly)
I do find it strange that the people down voting are more upset about someone pointing out how Biden broke International and Domestic (Leahy) Law to finance a genocide than the actual genocide itself
You’re right, that was awful and idealogically-rooted behavior justified in the name of liberal statecraft.
US support of Israel is a huge problem, and needs to stop. I am with you, and he should be held accountable for the part he played in that.
It’s a civil war.
only one side is fighting though.
That’s what they’ve been counting on. From over a year ago…
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said that the country is in the midst of a “second American Revolution” that will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.”
I wish, but I don’t have faith that enough liberal interests will give a shit. They’ve done little to stand against fascism and have sided with corporate interests every time.
Civil wars aren’t typically fought by politicians. It’s up to regular people.
Regular people who have been pacified by a lifetime of “violence isn’t the answer” and “if you fight back, you’re just as bad.” I hope we find the will to resist, but I worry we’re too far gone.
It’ll take time for good people to lose the “anti-violence” dogma, but it’ll happen; if only because it because it becomes an unavoidable fact of life.
So buy a gun. I did.
It’s like voting; obviously all I can control is my own actions, so I’ll do what I can, but if too many people stay home our chances drop significantly.
Thats only the first step in the process. i wish someone could explain the following steps.
Protect you and yours until you find your John Connor.
All it takes is 3%. We have the people.
3% for what? Where did that number even come from?
