Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Racist "Patriots"? No such animal can exist...

Judging any individual based on the color of his skin is stupid.

We have some stupid people in this community, to be sure.  But the majority, the overwhelming majority, are not stupid.  They are not racist.  They know that to judge an individual based upon the actions of a group is illogical, unfair, and stupid.  They know that the individual should be judged based on the actions of the individual.  Period.

A few months ago - it's probably been longer than that - several of the bloggers in this community connected a few dots that had us scratching our heads for a while.  Because a few people began to drop their masks, we were able to see that there was a very determined move to subtly connect the III and the broader Liberty Movement with racism.   We called it out and made our positions clear.

I'll reiterate my position: If you judge an individual based on the color of his skin rather than the actions he takes, you are an idiot, and you reveal that you are not a Thinker.  There is no room in the serious Liberty Movement for people who can not or will not Think.  If you can't clear the mental hurdle that skin color is irrelevant to an individual, you'll never be able to grasp the nuances of our more complex topics, such as SCOTUS being the final arbiter of what is "Constitutional".

You can not be a racist and an advocate for true Liberty.  The two are mutually exclusive.

Why am I bringing this up, seemingly out of the blue?  Because the problem never went away, it persists even now by a determined subset of people who claim to be Patriots, yet judge the value of an individual by skin color or some other trait beyond the control of the individual.  Bill is closer and deeper in this issue than am I at the moment, because he has made direct contact with some of these idiots.  See his link, here.

Two points in closing: I'm not in the mood for a discussion of this topic here.  I don't want to discuss the validity of applying stereotypes and personal experiences to large groups in situation X or Y versus scenario Z.  Of course there are times and places where you have to go that direction.  But, in a foxhole, just as the Anarchist will one day have to try to kill the Constitutionalist, and the Constitutionalist will one day be forced to defend himself against the Anarchist, if I learn that I am in a foxhole with a racist I'd just as soon stab you in the neck now and get it over with - fuck such an alliance.  You won't even finish bleeding-out before I have forgotten your worthless Soul.

Point Two: Before you start with the "Kerodin, you're being a hypocrite, because you judge all LEO as bad..."  You are wrong.  I do not automatically put all LEO in the Bad People category - but I have not yet met one who is unwilling to enforce an unconstitutional law in order to keep his paycheck coming.  I would genuinely like to meet that LEO.  But until I do...

End of discussion on this racism topic.  If you are a racist, don't come back here.  You are no Patriot. 

We are enemies.

Here's Bill's link.



  1. For starters, heres 340 of them and that don't even count the deputies working under them.

    1. Dave: From the article - At the time of this post, there are 15 sheriffs associations, 340 sheriffs, one police chief and one deputy sheriff who have stated they will not enforce any new gun laws.

      "...any new gun laws..."

      That is a Fail.

      They will continue to violate 2A Rights of Citizens in their AO per NFA, GCA '68, et cetera.

      As they say in Texas - this is all hat.


  2. Of course, all LEOs had to make a conscious decision to become LEOs, and every day must re-commit themselves to enforcing counterfeit "laws" (those which violate "Rightful Liberty"). No one made a decision to be any particular "race" and doesn't daily decide whether or not to change it. It's not about "what you are" it's about "what you DO".

    And, speaking as one individual anarchist, I would never kill a Constitutionalist other than in self defense. When that far-off day comes where the Constitutionalist has enough liberty and wants no more, we can simply part ways if I have any say in the matter.

    1. Kent: I don't think you would ever have a problem with a "real" Constitutionalist, because if our politicians stayed inside the lines regarding the Constitution, FedGov would never really interact with a Citizen. State Governments would become the boogeymen.


  3. The LEO chooses his uniform.

    No one chooses his skin.

  4. This deserves more than I can post at this time...

    Sufficient to say that anyone who thinks a "racist" is judging another person on "skin color" alone is beyond foolish. Luckily in SHTF it's gonna get you killed... as it should.

    1. I hope you find the time Lex, cuz it's mighty important. I think the point is clear even now---it's not because of skin color; it's because the person does A, B or C. That's pretty sensible IMO. The problem is associating the skin color with doing A, B or C. Even when there's a high correlation, that's a huge misidentification of causation. You don't do things BECAUSE of your skin color; you do things because you decide to do them. This is critical to any understanding of Liberty; otherwise the individual carries no responsibility for anything...whatever he happens to be "made him do it." Obviously that's false; nothing makes anyone do anything, except the person's own mind. Well, absent physical coercion of course.

      The reason it's so important in this context is because nearly everyone makes the same mistake, only with attributes other than skin color. K did it just the other day (twice!) about "anarchists," whoever the hell they are. The theory was that an anarchist will come to choose to shoot the Constitutionalist; therefore maybe the Constitutionalist should pre-emptively drop him in self-defense. Or Democrats, or LEOs, or bureaucrats, or collectivists, or whatever. I'm no fan of any of those myself, and I agree that each and every one of those are LIKELY to give me trouble one way or another...even physically eventually.

      But so what? If I somehow had the "right" to drop another person because he's LIKELY to cause me trouble, then this would be an awfully sparse world. I can rightfully drop him when he IS going to cause me trouble, not when I figure that he's likely to cause me trouble. Not even very, very likely.

      The way for YOU to be free politically is to make damn sure that EVERY other person is free politically. The logic is unassailable. If "being certain that the other guy is likely to do me harm" is justification for acting against him, then it's absolutely sure that some nitwit is going to be certain that you or I are going to cause him harm. Obviously, he CANNOT be allowed to act on that certainty. And just as obviously, if we cannot allow him to do that, then we cannot allow ourselves to do that.

      Why? Because we can readily identify that we are the same sort of creature as he and to treat him as if he were not, would be an implicit acknowledgement that others may treat us as we are not.


      One day, it's gonna sink in across the land: "The battle has ALWAYS been individualism versus collectivism." Yesterday would've been nice.

    2. JK: I made no mistake. ;)

      Those people I identified are doing me injury, right now, by proxy.

      For now, I take the abuse.

      Until I choose to no longer tolerate it.

      Then I will engage the coercive force and the proxies, and sleep well that night.


    3. "Those people I identified are doing me injury, right now, by proxy."

      But from the little I know, they're not. They're making it very tough for you, I'm sure, as they are for all of us. Very, very tough. Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying it's "unacceptable." The thing is, "unacceptable" is not sufficient cause to sacrifice your own existence as a decent person. If it were, then it would be for the other guy too.

      "Injury," in any Rightful Liberty context, means PHYSICAL injury. And yes, I believe they have done physical injury to you...but that would be about retaliation, a huge issue on its own, well afield of this.

      We create the future and we remember the past, but we only live in the present. Maybe I'm mistaken, and sorry if so, but you've given no indication of being currently injured physically. And if not, then you wouldn't be defending yourself against anything but your own imaginations and/or conclusions. The truth of those conclusions is irrelevant with regard to how you treat other people...you're either a thug against them or you're not.

      And if they are physically injuring you, then no Law could possibly make it wrong for you to stop that injury. For what Law could possibly trump your right to live? Rightful Liberty, the NAP, the ZAP...call it what you will. It's what it IS that counts.

      A little more of this and you'll be squawking about shooting Constitutionalists!

  5. Jim, there you go talking about skin color. Again. You said,"The problem is associating the skin color with doing A, B or C. Even when there's a high correlation, that's a huge misidentification of causation."

    It's not a misidentification. It's hard, factual, statistical, provable evidence. Something the "Diversity is our Strength" crowd is never gonna accept. Sure, it's OK to cite facts & statistics when speaking of Asian math scores, just don't use statistics when speaking of Black graduation rates, or out of wedlock births or God forbid- crime statistics.

    Nope, just ignore the dysfunctional tribe in the room & throw money at their Chiefs, maybe they won't rape & murder your children next, (Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom)... a pair among THOUSANDS sacrificed on the alter of Diversity. Just pretend they're all just like the loveable Huxtables of the Cosby Show.

    Now some in the Patriot community have made it clear that Whites who refuse to swallow the Diversity pill being rammed down our throats by FedGov are the enemy.

    So be it. FedGov forced inclusion & Patriot forced inclusion are one & the same. Tyranny.

    1. Racism is a form of collectivism. It can cause you to assume a person is an enemy because of the "race" you associate them with- and that could get you killed. It can also cause someone to not see a threat when that threat doesn't "look like" those you suspect to be the threat. That can also get you killed.

      I am not a "patriot". I am someone who believes liberty isn't a buffet where you get to pick and choose the parts you like and discard the rest. And I believe you will end up only getting the liberty you respect in others. I don't act like the "typical white person"- at least, as far as I can tell. I would sure hate for someone to mistakenly believe I do and kill me "in self defense" before knowing that I will not initiate force (and understand that self defense is NOT "initiating force"). Because that double-edged sword cuts both ways.

  6. "FedGov forced inclusion & Patriot forced inclusion are one & the same. Tyranny."

    Damn straight they are, so we agree.

    You haven't misidentified the correlation; you've misidentified the causation. There is only one cause for any action of any non-coerced person---that person's mind. That's it; end of story. There's nothing to argue about.

    Diversity? What's that? I'll tell you what it is---it's you doing the same thing as the "diversity crowd." It's you pretending that something else can possibly motivate a person besides his own mind. It's you classifying and (correctly) noting the correlation of the sets classified. It's you making exactly the same mistake as those you denounce...the pretension that maybe something else can motivate a person except the individual's free will and volition.

    Well, that's wrong. In the human realm, causation is as simple as anything could be...every person does what he or she decides, and that's that. Go ahead and figure out WHY a person decides if you wish, but that doesn't really matter. And it especially doesn't matter with regard to how you deal with that person. A thug must be stopped; a good person can be dealt with beneficially for both parties. Or not. Like everything else, it's just a choice.

  7. FWIW Jim, I appreciate honest, open discussion on this topic as I do any other. This one just happens to be a pet peeve of mine so You'll have to just recognize my passion for spreading truth & exposing the rest.

    I simply want freedom of association & freedom FROM association.

    To deny racial differences is to deny human genetics & biodiversity. Instinct has played a tremendous role in human motivation since the dawn of time. Instinct will trump free will & volition every time in a sub 80 IQ species. (See the Bell Curve).

    While I do not identify as a Supremacist of any sort, I do identify as White & recognize my proud, accomplished Heritage. I have nothing to be ashamed of nor apologize for. I owe no man, no race anything.

    I would love nothing more that the "tribes" of the World to re-identify with one another & seek their own individual/collective harmony with Nature & their fellow humans. But I'm not holding my breath...

    Slightly off topic, but which has done more to hurt Liberty & Freedom in America today... The current Police State or the collective known as Black America? How are the two intertwined?

  8. "I simply want freedom of association & freedom FROM association."

    That's our battle cry, Lex. IMO it's about as good as Jefferson's wording. As always I've got plenty more, but it's sort of irrelevant in the face of that.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.