Tut tut! Starjello should be EMPRESS!

This is going to be a long post, I don't often give people this level of response because very few people merit it, but here goes. *"but all the election did was provide a foot hold, after that he completely ignored the status-quo laws, destroyed the republic, and rebuilt Germany"* You either want the system as it currently is, corrupt as hell to "preserve" the "republic" as it were, or you rightfully want it to go away. You only get that one way. Choose. We are small and powerless as you wrote. And I'm going to explain why this is simultaneously important and yet doesn't matter. *"Remain within this Marxist dystopia playing by their rules?"* Yes. More specifically, force them to play by their rules. Their failure to do so will destroy their legitimacy. A government must then resort to the thing it always resorts. *" If your opponent is cheating and you decide to play by the rules out of principle, you are going to lose the game in the end, no matter how many childhood books convey the message cheaters never prosper. "* This is glownigger thinking, because you're either a glownigger, or you've been blackpilled by a glownigger. Heres the problem that the oligarchs and communists running the west face: How to keep on cheating without losing legitimacy among the people who are being cheated. So sooner or later they'll destroy themselves, but thats not the point. You can't wait around for your opposition to make a mistake, you have to manuever them *into* making mistakes, force them to act. This is what Virginia is about. The state is desperate. I'm not merely talking about the single event, but the campaign by the state as whole, from pre-election, to post-election policy-making. *"the current system is completely controlled and nothing can be accomplished by using it."* The current system is not completely controlled. I don't know how to better explain this except simply to argue from authority. The system of state and governance is made of many interlocking agendas (so they all appear to drive toward the same thing "as if controlled from the top"). The indicator that allows you to know this is that no one has been able to settle on a single, acceptable answer for "what individual or specific group controls the west." Rothchilds? Bank of International Settlement? The Fed ? The CFR? George fucking soros? Willy wonka? Not fucking likely. Thats because no one group is definitively in charge. They operate by a combination of coercion and consensus, while covertly competing and maneuvering against one another. The game they play is much bigger than the west, let alone the u.s. But the critical thing is, it is acted out on a 'table' or playing field, not entirely built on u.s. politics, but which has u.s. politics as one of its legs. No one person is powerful enough to flip the table. But, metaphorically, we can take out one of the legs. *"If by some freak chance a non-puppet politician got in"* You're relying on the great man theory. This is a common error. The marxists commit the opposite error of completely discarding it. The other error people commonly commit is committing too much to any one scope "the presidency or nothing", versus "think global, act local, run for mayor." Now I always learn from my opponents and as the communists say "push through a negative into its opposite." Zoldam, you've already stumbled on the answer and don't even know it. We are NOT in control. But not being in control does NOT mean we have no influence, that is the great lie, that these things are one in the same. *Understand* what the battle is and what it is *not*. This is not karate. This is Judo. That is politics. Politics is the conduit of our opposition's force. *"got in, one who had the best interest of the people in mind, they would not be able to achieve anything, because so many on our "side" are dumbasses. "* They have been mislead because people want to believe in something. They want to be lead. The question is, are you going to let the hangup caused by the difference between what you say you believe and what you actually believe be the arbiter of *what you do*? Because our opposition has no such hangups. This is not a time for weak willed men, nor men who lack the courage and ruthlessness of their own convictions. Neither will people working from the inside, or even working from the outside as part of the process be the only key element. There are many. Like the interlocking agendas that sustain the existing political machinery, the system that emerges to replace it, will mirror that same design. The guys on the chans for example do great work. The various rogue intelligence agents do great work. The 'independent' investigative reporting scene that sometimes obeys, and sometimes doesn't, adds an element of unpredictability to our opposition's plans. We are very near a point where there will be too many agendas, both small and large, to effectively govern covertly. Everyone is dissatisfied with the existing system, including many of the largest organizations that sustain it. They all want more. Timing is everything. The state knows this. They have to pull back the curtain to reveal the brick wall behind it if they want to remain in control. They can't do that without a disarmament in the west first. The battle you seem eager for is another generation out. *"Look, I am a libertarian at heart, but after watching for a couple decades now, in addition to all of the US history I know, the libertarians do absolutely nothing as Marxists conquer politics"* The best they could muster was controversy-inducing Sol Invictus who played his cards and fell off the ladder. He had courage, but he flared-out instead of burning slow and steady like a candle to light the way in the dark. Why have you not run for office in the libertarian party if you're dissatisfied? This is a serious question, because I myself was a libertarian at one point. *"as Marxists conquer politics because "they have the right to do that".* Well don't they now? It would appear at first glance they have. Or do you not believe might makes right? But the evidence for that very thing is right before your eyes! In the daily news, in politics, in the civil wars and internal strifes of foreign conflicts, everywhere. So why then do you protest what is real and true, while after the object that might achieves? If you're reading this and feel like protesting what I've wrote, don't. Stop for a second. What you are experiencing is cognitive dissonance, because what I am writing is true. This is the way of the world. It is not the evil that you do. But the reasons that you do it for. And if tomorrow you became the emperor of the world, or some other fancy title, there would be nothing you could do that would not be *evil* to someone else, that would not be to *someone else's detriment*. Even the very act of speaking about "peaceful protest" makes you a "potential terrorist" in say, the eyes of the FBI. And why shouldn't it? Wouldn't a foreign power use the cover of peaceful protest to foment violent insurrection? And the act of reading news written by a critic of the government? Wouldn't an international conglomerate involved in crime prop up a bankrupt newspaper to attack the legitimacy of a government that regulates it? Wouldn't any action by potential opposition be a threat to the state, those in power, whatever the title they call themselves? The intentions of others are often unknown, the motives are numerous but often predictable. The facts remain that what is *good* for you is *evil* to another, whether or not your intentions are good, or lawful, or righteous. Power, like gravity, clears it's orbit of all smaller bodies, all challengers. It is and always does, in the aggregate, become amoral. What is good? Who the hell knows. Ask Caeser. Caesers dead. Long live Caeser. Barbarians killed him, fornicated on his grave, built a new empire on the ashes of rome, and forget themselves for so long that they were conquered. This isn't really a message written *to* you. I suppose a more appropriate one would be one that speaks to your values, beliefs, and your current state of mind but I think more people are ready for the truth of it all. Telling you 'how it is', how the world works, will be more effective, allowing you to pursue your own agenda, than merely telling you what to think or inspiring hope. After all, you are, as is everyone, their own salvation. *"I have grown sick of their ineffective and self-destructive attitude."* Read this out loud to yourself. I want your ears to hear it as if I spoke it to you. "Good. They are weak, like a wounded sickly animal." now you have to ask yourself, again, out loud "what will I do about it?" I expect the silence will be very fruitful. *"rather than address a serious threat when it could be taken care of, we now have to content with an overwhelming beast, a beast nobody is willing to do anything about because it would infringe upon the beasts' freedom"* I don't always quote the bible, so when I do, I ask you to keep in mind what they spoke about in revelations. Thats a funny word isn't it? "Revelations." The greeks understood "apocalypse" not as this loony-tunes "the sky is falling" bullshit. No. They understood it as an "ongoing historic and cultural process, that occurs among both individuals and nations." Not sure I believe any of that but it makes more sense then the literalist interpretations. Like the "alchemists" what the authors of revelations were trying to understand (but lacked the tools, the language to scientifically describe), was fundamentally a psychological, psychosocial, and political process that they had seen before. "A beast with ten horns"? who "lent their power" to one figure? Ringing any bells? They're describing a situation where major organizations and figureheads all have interlocking agendas, and operate through consensus. You speak of beasts and don't even realize the beasts you speak of were described long ago. And how was that beast beat? Yeah, yeah, "Jesus" and all that, but consider the figure as a icon, or symbol representing a broader concept. Systems of interlocking agendas can't maintain equilibrium forever, they all turn to strongmen or 'dictators' sooner or later. And as agendas often do, when they decide they really don't like the new arrangement, and try to buck their very own system as they're used to, they find that the strongman who has been put in place, like a lynchpin, won't allow it. His job is to keep it all together. Now I speak of strongmen, but really it could be anything, an individual, a small group, a large international governance organization, etc. And if a lynchpin holds it all together, what is a lynchpin really but the pin on a hand grenade? And so, we see what follows in revelations, how the system that emerged from interlocking agendas falls to shit and pulls itself apart when the proper forces and circumstances are applied. *"Oh yes once the beast begins to prey on them they will scream "Don't tread on me!" because not their liberty is being trampled on, and they will combat it, but at that point it will be a behemoth, and lots of people will die. "* It's awful isn't it? This is gonna sound calloused, "no use crying over spilled milk." If the system is already doomed, if it's already too late, then lots of people will die anyway and theres nothing you or I or anybody can really do. Thats not on you. It is not your job to save the world. In response to the last line you just read I expect the next thing you will write is something to the affect of "But we can't allow them to go on, when they're such a threat, when the marxists continual existence will hurt countless people!" Trust me. I understand. But, at the end of the day, what can YOU do? By your words, nothing apparently. This is not an indictment or judgement of you. This is the human condition. At the end of the day, the ONLY thing you can really do is make it your job to assure that theres something left worth preserving and rebuild when the old system goes away. And also to assist in whatever small part or capacity that is in your power, to assure it does. Do not follow idiots who ask you to sacrifice *everything* for some cause or other. But if every man endeavors to do their small part, whatever is in their power to do, then by a thousand cuts the beast will die. And we need not resort to violence or lawlessness to do it. "Tell me this, was it worth it? Was it worth it to let this disaster grow to the scale it is?" But if you had no control over it it, who said anything about "letting" it grow out of control? Does a cancer victim "let" themselves have cancer? No. Entropy, maliciousness, decay, political, social, spiritual, all these things happen naturally with time. The west is currently sick, it is fighting off a bad cold, and it needs every little bit every good man can muster, nothing more, and nothing less than that. "The last time libertarians actually did anything was in the 1800s, they are a joke now." Then ask yourself, what should replace the libertarians? What is the modern equivalent of the "libertarians of the 1800s"? And what distinguishes the two?