Monday, June 28, 2004

The event that changed the war for me

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi militants killed an American soldier they have held hostage for nearly three months, saying the killing was because the U.S. government did not change its policy in Iraq, Al-Jazeera television said Tuesday."

This war in Iraq is not one I thought we ought to be in. It was not in my view OUR war. On a much deeper level the entire conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan was something I think the United States could have avoided years ago by simply altering our course toward hegemony and empire. All the same the Taliban were explicitly complicit in the attacks of 9/11. Therefore in my mind no matter the reason that they may have had for their attack I fully supported their overthrow. I was happy to be part of that overthrow. It was something I could justify in my mind as worth doing.

I have expressed my opinion that the invasion of Iraq was ill conceived, ill advised and improperly executed. I think we fought the wrong war, in the wrong country for the wrong reasons. I still stand by that view. As I prepare to head back out across the big water in a few days I have wrestled with this and consoled myself in the fact that my duty is to the young soldiers I lead, no matter where our task may take us.

All of that “higher thinking” and pontificating matters little now. The savagery and barbarity of the folks that killed this young Soldier and will most likely kill a young Marine tomorrow is beyond the pale of acceptability.

Yes I realize that several civilians have been murdered in much the same way prior to this. I thought that was wrong but my anger was not sparked to the point it has now reached for a simple reason. The civilians were there because they chose to go their and work. Many were lured by the promise of large paychecks. They understood it was a dangerous place but decided to forego the risks for the promise of big money. Their deaths were sad, their murders wrong but this was after all the result of a calculated risk.

Soldiers and Marines too take a risk but it is not one of money. Theirs is a risk to serve something they see and bigger than them. That is all the difference in these murders.

I love being around young troops. This is one of my greatest joys in life. I look into their eyes when we are out doing something challenging and recall the spark that filled my soul nineteen years ago when I was a young buck trooper.

The young men that serve in “real units” are the finest America has to offer. These folks do not ask for much nor do they receive much. I can think a dozen different times over the years when I have had to take money out of my own pocket to buy milk or formula for some 20 year old kid and his family because they just could not make ends meet. When it comes to “show time” most of these kids are right there doing and ready to do what no kid ought to ever have to do.

They are all the same. At times their faces and names run together into a sort of montage of young lives that have crossed paths with yours. Many of them leave the service after one tour; other stick around. It is always a pleasure to run up down the road on a fellow that has stuck around and risen to the noncommissioned officer ranks.

Sure there are troublemakers, some very few actual real troublemakers. I have really only bumped into three completely unredeemable sorts in all my years. I have had my share of yahoos “stand on the carpet” in front of my desk to receive punishment for various offenses. Even these fellows were not bad apples and their offenses were generally things civilian society would not blink at. I have always thought the best cure for young warriors that cannot behave in garrison is to but them out in the field training. That burns up all that excess energy.

I suppose the thing about all the faces merging into what is in my mind the stereotypical “young trooper” is that all the love and affection I have developed for each individual over the years passed via osmosis to all the ones I do not know.

It is with those thoughts that my perspective on the entire War in Iraq has changed. I no longer care why we went, if we should have or any of that. I think the folks that have killed this young Soldier and will probably kill this Marine do not deserve to see another day. They do not deserve to have a voice in what Iraq will become. They do not deserve to believe as they wish or go on living their lives.

I have and will always support the right of a people to assert their will through any means available to them; up to and including revolution and insurgency. Barbarism and savagery have no place in that effort. Those that practice such acta do not deserve the option to express their political will.

Yes the entire purpose and mission in Iraq has changed in my mind. It is all about freeing the world from thugs and punks that would commit murder to achieve their ends. I will march to the gates of Hell to stop people like that.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

the evangelical outpost

"Several months ago I argued that the fight over the phrase "under God" in the Pledge was a dispute over the liturgy of our country's civil religion, not of Christianity. The theme was picked up and fleshed out by John Coleman, one of the brightest young Christian minds in America. Though he initially disagreed with my position, he has since reconsidered and published his thoughts in an op-ed for the Birmingham (Alabama) News"

Interesting piece that describes the notion of American Civil Religion and the confusion many Christians attach to it.

Vox Popoli

"Right from the beginning, when the administration showed that they would rather strip rights from American cititzens than do anything to offend illegal aliens, I had serious doubts about whether the administration was actually serious about its undeclared war on method. In fact, in my very first political column, I warned about how the response to 9/11 would likely be used to America's detriment."

Did I say already that i think I will like this blog? Well if not I am still inclined to think I am going to like it.

This article is right on.

The Patriot Act of the 18th Century

How the Alien and Sedition Acts became the first act of government to limit the populous' constitutional rights--and how States' Rights stopped the intrusion

habeas corpus any one---Lincoln Redux?

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial"

Tell me since when can Congress authorize the President to do anything that the Constitution specifically forbides?

A few of words from that tattered document that the neo-cons, liberals and socialist ignore so easily when it gets in their way....

Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Cacophony of voices

The more I observe the diversity that exists within the various voices that dissent, bemoan and/or truly wish to change the current state of affairs the more I am convinced that these various efforts are doomed. These efforts amount to little more than angry men (and women) tilting windmills.

Oh I am not just talking here of the Southern Movement again, although I will get to that directly. I am thinking of things like the recent CPAC We the People conference, the libertarians up in New Hampshire and their Free State project, Dr. James Kennedy and his Center for Reclaiming America, Allen Keyes and his Declaration Foundation, the various un-reconstructionist in the Southern Movement, the plethora of otherwise good Americans that throw their votes to the Republican party in the hope that the lies about restoring America might be true, and the third party folks in the Constitutional, Libertarian and Southern Parties. I am talking about all of these folks and more.

I do not mean to paint all of these groups as just angry men. Some are practical and pragmatic. They seek to use the current system that effect change. Others, like the un-reconstructionist seem to be nothing more than angry men with no real plan.

Of the groups I mentioned above at least all have some element of the truth in their agenda, some much more than others. I cannot disagree in theory with all they stand for, not in theory at least.

Of course there are a lot of angry men that wish to change the system that I do disagree with; the Nazi's, Skinheads, NAACP, Socialist, KKK, SPLC and a bunch of others of their ilk.

Then there are those that have most of the basic principles right but they lose their way in a myriad of conspiracy theories and other unverifiable beliefs. The Patriot or Militia movement is specifically who I refer to here. These folks understand what America was founded upon and how the Constitution was intended to be interpreted. On that they are generally correct with minor variations. They lose credibility by focusing on "invisible enemies" and unproven conspiracies. Thus I would have to add to the moniker of angry man that of confused.

Excluding the folks that wish to change America into something it was not founded to be, i.e. Nazi's, Skinheads, NAACP, Socialist, KKK, SPLC ad nauseum: I will focus on the groups that at least get part of the problem.

The real issue that ought to be foremost in the minds of each of these groups is; can change be achieved inside the current system and if so what sort of coalition do we need to achieve that?

Two of the groups mentioned disavow outright the potential for internal change, the un-reconstructionist and the militia folks. I will talk about their difficulties in a separate piece.

Of the groups that remain, and I undoubtedly left a bunch out, there is a great degree of variation in their agenda. These groups tend to focus on their differences rather than the items that they may share commonality. Many of the movements and groups are focused around personalities and therefore ego comes into play. A man does not want to give up his little empire to ally with a larger group even if it means an increased possibility of success.

I hate to beat anyone up specifically but the libertarians seem as guilty of this as any of the groups; maybe more so. Their arrogance surrounding their grand plan for New Hampshire has made them insular. They believe they are becoming part of the "mainstream" and do not need to cooperate with "fringe" groups. How foolish of them. As soon as they abandon enough of their original principles to become mainstream they will no longer be a viable vehicle for change.

Right behind the libertarians I would place Christian men pastors that speak on political issues. Dr. James Kennedy comes to mind first but he is far from being alone, Pat Robinson, Jerry Farwell and a dozen others are the same. Each runs his own little movement with various aspects of the "restoring America" theme included. Each is separate, isolated and unconnected to the others. There is much commonality in the themes that each advocates in their agenda bit because of ego, doctrinal differences and other reasons there is little cooperation. In essence these are just angry men talking and accomplishing little.

Allen Keyes, Pat Buchanan, Walter Williams and others like them that see what is wrong and provide excellent commentary and opinion serve a purpose and achieve much in terms of public awareness and education. To be certain Pat and Allen have done their part to take the fight to a national platform by enduring the pains of running a doomed presidential campaign. Alen Keyes is now involved with his Declaration Foundation with goals very similar to almost every other group that sees what is really wrong with America. The problem is his group just one, based mostly on a man. In that regard is falls into the trap of so many others.

Then of course there are the third party folks. You have to love them because they see full well the lies, transgression and failings of the two major parties. Their pitfall is that they have not broadened their base enough to include all the disinterested electorate. This could easily be done in such a way that libertarians, constitutionalist and States' Rights folks could easily fall under on umbrella. The alliance would not need to be permanent; just long enough to break the back of the two party monopoly. Yet, instead, these groups are splintered into three factions that will never achieve any success.

With all of these varying voices, opinions and movements the average guy is left with little real choice. A rationale analysis of the situation says that none of these concepts or movements are really going to impact things. So the ordinary joe marches off "dutifully" to the polls and casts his vote for the Republican party.

It is hard to find contempt in my heart for conservatives, Southerners, Christians and other good people that vote in such a way. I even forgive fools on the blogshere that boldly state their support for the Republicans. After all what winning option have they been provided. (I am not forgiving all such supporters; some are genuinely confused as to what constitutes good decent conservative thought--one such moron recently refused one of my comments on his blog because I dared question his sacred party)

The simple fact is that if we are ever to really "restore America" these various groups must cooperate. The idea that little groups can become part of the mainstream is fallacy. The only hope is that all of these groups join their efforts in such a way that the definition of mainstream is redefined. Mainstream conservative is something these groups do not need to Join; rather it is something they must define by their combined efforts.

Failing this there are but two options remaining. I will discuss those in my next piece.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

A New Terror Threat: Floating Beer Coolers

Is there a special Branch of Ridiculously Stupid Ideas deep underneath some federal building (well yeah, we know there are several such branches in every federal department)

I am referring to the guys that post these crazy terror warnings. Now we are supposed to be on the lookout for exploding beer coolers. Way back in the day, i.e. several months ago, people were out buying duct tape and plastic because the threat of chemical agents was "clear and present". Since then we have been on the look out for everything conceivable.

Every major holiday we are told "this is gonna big the big one". The holiday comes and goes with now big event and no large terrorist plot uncovered. Maybe Tom Ridge and the boys think they really need to justify their existence.

Enough is enough. Really, it seems that these folks need to continue to issue threats just to remind everyone that there is a threat. I guess the Special Creative Branch of Threat Creation is doing its work well.

I suppose the idea that just maybe reducing the activities that actually CAUSE the threat might work better.

I refinanced a VA loan on a rental property I own last week. I had to fill out the patriot Act paperwork so that some fat and happy bureaucrat can justify a job spending my tax money to verify that I am not a terrorist.

This is all insane...the world is turned upside down.

Sunday, June 27, 2004

Blog Lessons-Part II

I wrote my first Blog Lessons piece soon after I started blogging and published a piece entitled "Fire Rumsfeld". Venomous Kate found the piece somehow and linked to it from her site. I got a lot of traffic because of that. I learned a little about blogging and wrote it down.

I later found her to be such a nice lady (despite her attempts otherwise) I decided to host one of my sites with her.

That was all in the beginning...way back almost two months ago...

I have been a little discouraged with this entire blogging thing as of late. In fact the last piece of any substance I have written was back on 17 Jun. I do not anticipate that this piece will be of great interest or relevance. I just want to write it because this is what I am thinking.

I was excited a couple of months ago when I started this little experience. I joined up with the Rebel Alliance and thought, “gosh this is great, a group of pro-Southern bloggers”. Then of course we had our little spat over there and I thought, “gosh, the blogsphere is just like the rest of the world, churches, clubs, political movements…folks disagree, get mad, attack each other and things fall apart”.

I suppose my naiveté was misplaced. The blogsphere is made up of just humans. So why should I expect that things should be different. Ok, lessen learned, got it. So I have learned that people here are the same as they are in person, maybe some are braver behind their keyboards but still basically the same.

I have figured out it is easy to be misunderstood on the blogshere. I get email now from some guy at Freeway blog asking for support of like minded liberals. I get a kick out of that. Maybe he found one of my post regarding the War in Iraq and assumes I am liberal.

I have figured out that it is pretty tough to get an audience. Well tough if your subject matter is limited in the scope of possible interest. My basic subject is the South. I do comment on politics in general from what I perceive as a very principled Southern perspective. So I realize that from the get go I have limited my potential audience.

Then of course there is the fact that my views on the Southern Movement are very pragmatic. Some in the movement would call me heretical and for that they immediately tune me out. My small potential audience just got a lot smaller.

I have noticed on some of the very popular blogs that people tend to talk about items that I would consider impolite. They often pepper their postings with extraneous profanity. Since I do not do these things I guess I limit my potential readability more.

I check the logs here from time to time and it seems I get about 17 unique visitors a day. Of those about five read more than one article. Most of the folks that find me for the first time come from search engines. This is, I believe, not the way most successful blogs get most of their traffic. So by being unorthodox in the way I attract folks I seem to limit my possible readership.

I have a theory that a lot of the folks that find me in search engines are not really regular blog readers. I could be wrong but my analysis of the log files supports my hypothesis. If I am correct then these sort of folks are not likely to return day after day. They found what they searched for on Tuesday, on Wednesday they are doing their regular thing.

I have read the “rules” of building a popular blog and I have basically followed none of them. I did not start this with the intention of conforming to the rules or writing in such a way that folks added me to their blog rolls. This is not and was not a popularity attempt by me.

I still wonder at times if this is an effort worth continuing. I guess that out of the 17 daily visitors I discussed above and the five folks that read a couple of post each visit that in a weeks time I might actually put an idea or two in at least one person’s head. I guess if that math holds up I am generating about ideas in 52 folks per year. Small impact indeed, but hey, that is 52 people with 52 ideas influenced slightly by me.

I will of course have to pretty much put this thing away for a few months when I leave in a few days. Maybe while I am gone I will develop a new and different perspective. Maybe not. As it stands right now I find it hard to get the inspiration to write much more than simple commentaries in items of interest to me. The fire to write anything more meaningful escapes me.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Southern pride rallies 'round flag

Interesting article

Friday, June 25, 2004

What I have been up to

I have been pretty busy helping the Christian Exodus folks out. I suppose that is by this point a misnomer. In actuality I suppose I am now a full-fledged member. I have spoken with Cory Burnell (the movement president) and other members at least weekly on the phone and I remain convinced that these are good and decent people. I have also spent some time on their forum; forums being a thing I rarely participate in.

I have a few tasks that I am performing for the group. I wrote the official position statements for:

The Original Intent of The US Constitution
The 14th Amendment
The 16th Amendment
The 17th Amendment

Take a look, all pretty much the bread and butter of much of our Southern ideology.

Today I did an interview with a reporter form the L.A. Times. I have the feeling she hoped I was some crazed whacko hiding in a cave waiting for the apocalypse to start. I really hope I did not disappoint her….actually in my own country boy way I think I did alright. We will have to wait to see how she quotes me.

I am also working on a primer for the uninitiated that deals with the issue of States' Rights and Secession. Eventually this will be integrated into the CE site once it is complete and edited.

Anyway, these folks are good people and are working hard toward the restoration of government in at least one state that is very close to the Southern way of thinking. I am happy to be with them.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Thursday, June 24, 2004

Alan Keyes warns: 'Republic is dying'

Alan Keyes warns: 'Republic is dying': "Alan Keyes warns:
'Republic is dying'
Wants judges impeached for high crime of 'stealing your right to include God...Our republic is dying before our eyes in this generation," Keyes told a South Dakota audience of 1,200 this week, according to the Rapid City Journal. "It's no doubt we could be living in the last days of the American republic.'"

I like Keyes, it is too bad there are not more men like him. I think his view of the Republic is dying is right on---except it has most likely already passed into a much deeper coma than Keyes admits in this piece.

Army halts medallions due to Bible reference

Army halts medallions due to Bible reference: "Army halts medallions
due to Bible reference"

People ask me often why I continue to is simply because too many of the senior leaders are spineless, godless, losers that live by now set of real principles or values. Someone has to stay and protect good and decent young troopers from these people as much as is possible.

OK to insult women, but not homosexuals

OK to insult women, but not homosexuals: "OK to insult women, but not homosexuals -France takes action to outlaw 'homophobia'"

"A bill that criminalizes "sexist and homophobic" remarks was approved by the French government yesterday, despite criticism from groups noting that insulting women would still be legal."

Tell me again why my granddaddy saved these yahoos in WWII and my great-great granddaddy died on a field in France in WWI?

I have been to France three times....never liked it. It is not hard to see why. The frogs see the world all turned upside down.

Barbara Walters

News: "I think America has lost respect for political figures"

How long did it take you to figure that out Barbara? Of course we do not respect men that do not live on principle!!

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Bill lets cops carry guns away from home

"The House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill today that would allow police to carry concealed weapons when off-duty outside their home jurisdictions and across state lines."

So is this supposed to make me feel safer? I do not particularly trust cops anyway. There are too many examples of their excesses.

Why does the Congress need to be in the business of passing laws to allow these folks to carry their weapons when off-duty across state lines?

What about me the regular guy? Who will protect me from some gun happy goose-stepping Nazi off on vacation that happens to be having a bad day?

Talk about a police state....if the gun grabbers had their way we would be surrounded by "picked men" and criminals packing iron while the rest of us are left as helpless victims.

I need not remind you this comes from a REPUBLICAN controlled congress...

This will not stand

"I'm not sure that the horror that is John Kerry is enough to scare me into voting for George W. Bush now that he has let something like this stand... well, there's the Constitution Party."

Man, the neo-cons and their foolish decision not to stand up for US sovereignty got the Avenger all fired up....keep it up Bush...push some more folks toward the Constitution Party

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws

My Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws: "President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday...."

George Washington would not have condoned this....Bobby Lee would not have implemented it.....Jesus Christ would condemn it.

Who else do we need as examples to finally figure out that the neo-cons and the liberals are opposite sides of the same evil coin?

This is not the way Americans behave. This is not the way the Southern mind thinks. This is not something we can on principle tolerate.

No matter who we fight and no matter what methods our enemies might use we are or SHOULD be guided by a higher law. Once we abandon that we sink into the level of barbarity that we so despise in others.

Bubba's werld

Bubba's werld

I got a real laugh from this little snippet of humor on the Unreconstructed Medic's site

Vox Popoli

Vox Popoli: "You're not free if you're not free to leave"

Just found this blog, thanks to Flannel Avenger

Several good reads

Meathead Moore

Southern Knight: "Is it just me or does Michael Moore look like 'the meathead' from All In The Family"

Southern Knight provides a pic of Meathead Moore. Funny stuff.

Bush to screen population for mental illness

WorldNetDaily: Bush to screen population for mental illness: "President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen.... "

What a strange world we live in...Is this the action of a Conservative? Do a freedom loving people really want the government mucking around in their heads?

Of course not. The only sort of folks that would buy into this notion are that whose heads are already mush.

I recommend that anyone that still believes Bush and the Republicans are the best hope for Southern principles of freedom and liberty be the first to sign up for this new "probing".

Monday, June 21, 2004

Mr. Rumsfeld the War Criminal

Mr. Rumsfeld the War Criminal: "
The New York Times reports today that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered military personnel in Iraq to hold a man dubbed 'Triple X' in a secret prison facility outside Baghdad airport but not to list him on the prison's rolls and to actively hide him from the International Red Cross. Triple X was one of several 'ghost detainees' held in Iraq 'hidden largely to prevent the International Committee of the Red Cross from monitoring their treatment.'"

I told you long ago about this man.

Saddle Creekens

I have read with great interest your various claims that it is the fundamentalist and evangelicals that start wars. This is of course removed by only a post or two from an expressed desire that all the crazies would indeed move to SC so that you could have them bombed.

Nice rants all, my hat is off to you. I would challenge you to utilize a bit of intellectual honesty in the subjective name calling hoisted about so freely. There is a vast difference in a Christian, a fundamentalist and an evangelical. I am not claiming anyone that falls within one of those categories in either superior or inferior. I simply state the fact that there is a difference. It is ill advised to claim that one is the same and neatly attempt to stuff all into the same box.

I would also challenge you to learn more of what Christian Exodus is all about. It is not, as so many of your posters proclaim, intended to set up some form of theocracy. Of course I doubt you will seek more knowledge in this regard. I am merely pointing out an error that went unchecked on your forum for some time.

Lastly, as for the recommendation by a couple of your posters that maybe if we are unhappy we might ought to just move to another country. There was even a comparison made between our dissatisfaction and that of Vietnam draft dodgers. Nay, nay and tisk tisk….you really just do not get it.

In any event, it seems to me you might like the idea of all us crazy folks moving off to places far from you. This seems like a win-win to me. You ought to send us money and help us all pack.

Anyway, I am happy you stopped by. I did so enjoy reading your forum as it pertains to us whackos. It is always enlightening to read what the uniformed mind has to say about a good idea.

Y'all have a good day!

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Dixie Outfitters - Quality T-shirts & Apparel - "Preserving Our Heritage Since 1861"

Dixie Outfitters - Quality T-shirts & Apparel - "Preserving Our Heritage Since 1861": "Dixie Outfitters supports all students who wish to show their pride in their Southern Heritage by wearing shirts to school that feature the Confederate Battle Flag.
We believe that banning of the Confederate Battle Flag by public schools is a violation of students right to freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Further, these unconstitutional bans discriminate against persons of Southern heritage and are an insult to those who have Confederate ancestors. Such discrimination is a violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964."

Excellent concept. Take a look at some of the Protest items offered. These ought to make gestapo school admin folks that seem to know nothing of history cringe.

The wrong war

Interesting argument that the foolishness in Iraq has made the world a much more dangerous place.

Constitution Party National Convention in Valley Forge, Pa.

U.S. Newswire - Constitution Party National Convention in Valley Forge, Pa.: "'The national convention of the Constitution Party begins next week in Valley Forge, Pa. June 22-26. For details, go, please, to the Party's web page Lord willing, Michael Anthony Peroutka will be the Presidential nominee with the Rev. Chuck Baldwin of Pensacola, Fla., as his running mate. For media interested in covering the Convention and/or interviewing Michael or Chuck, call: 301-873-4612 or 410- 766-8591 or 301-490-7266 or email Thanks. God bless you all,' John Lofton, communications director, Peroutka 2004.
The themes of the Peroutka-Baldwin campaign are 'God-Family- Republic.' "

Iran Confiscates U.K. Military Vessels

Iran Confiscates U.K. Military Vessels
: "Iran said Monday it had confiscated three British naval vessels and arrested eight armed crew members. The Royal Navy acknowledged it had lost contact with three small patrol boats on a routine mission in the waterway between Iraq and Iran."

I have posted several small news items over at the SN News site over the last two weeks that indicate that Iran seems intent on joining the Grand Imperial War as contestant number three.

I cannot imagine why these folks seek to give the government in Washington more "ammunition" for a case the will inevitably be built against them.

George Washington warned us of "entangling foreign affairs", Tricky Dick Nixon warned us to always play Iraq against Iran to maintain stability in the Mildest. We have ignored this advice in each case. First we invaded Iraq when there was not real good and solid justification. In doing so we destroyed the one force that kept Iran in check.

Our Washington masters are fools, the liberals and their cousins the neo-cons and all those that think that the place of the US is that of globetrotting hegemon are leading us straight into another war.

We Southerners need to wake up and see the real ramifications of our support for the party of Lincoln....what has changed since that evil character left office? Is this the sort of world that we would live in if we Southerners had our own nation? We neither desire empire nor do we wish to contiunually seek new and interesting lands to conquer. These are not our fights.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Sunday, June 20, 2004

Thoughts on the Southern Baptist Resolution to Remove Our Children from Public Schools

The Screen of the Scriptures: "The Screen of the Scriptures:
Thoughts on the Southern Baptist Resolution to Remove Our Children from Public Schools"

This resolution should have passed!!

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Dogma Police

I have recently, unfortunately, been witness to a strange phenomenon, that is to say an ideological movement eating its’ own.

Southerners are indeed freedom minded folk. Traditional Southerners have always, within the bounds of our guiding principles, held strongly the right of a man to think and do as he wishes. For a Southerner to abandon his right to make up his own mind on a matter or attempt to force another to “toe the line” and think just like the group is patently UN SOUTHERN.

The Southern Movement has been at times a movement of ideology and doctrine. We are men of course and we are apt to fall into the frailties of men. This is to be expected.

What is supposed to make us different, nay better, is that we live based on principles. Our principles should guide us and lead us in the movement. Principles should protect us from accepting such strict and doctrinaire stances that the possibility of individual thought is eliminated.

As men we are also apt to confuse adherence to doctrine with adherence to principles. These are not the same. Principles are unchanging and result from the divine spark that God has endowed his people with. Doctrine is simply mans attempt to codify the principles.

If the Southern Movement is ever to thrive, survive and succeed we must begin adhering more to principle and less to dogma and doctrine. We should ask what are we really fighting for and what do we hope to accomplish. How will we accomplish our aims? Will we do it with a handful of doctrinaire ideologues that are purist in terms of following rules?

To me this sort of person is as foreign and dangerous as a Nazi, Communist, Democrat or Republican. For these sorts would impose their version of OUR principles on others. Our principles are right and just and will sell themselves. Dogma on the other hand in any movement is always another matter entirely.

I cannot help but to compare this sort of doctrinaire cleansing of the ranks to that of the French Revolution or dare I say it…the Communist Revolution in Russia.

The same phenomenon affects parts of the black community. In the liberal machine of the NAACP it is easy to silence an opponent by questioning his “blackness”.

I would caution any one that purports to run around claiming a higher degree of purity of thought to consider the potential outcomes. I would ask for instance when the Doctrine Police might come for you. Did your daddy toe the line? If not after all the blatant scalawags have been dealt with you might be next on the list. Did your great-great great grand pappy serve in X Y and Z battles? If he was only in X and Y then you might just not be a real patriot.

Think this is over the top? I suppose a lot of the folks that worked for the French revolution only to end up at the guillotine felt the same way. “I am a good citizen, not like all those I supported executing before…”

Is this really the sort of company we wish to keep? Is this really the sort of folks we want to become? Does this at all represent the spirit of Christian brotherhood we are supposed to engender?

The insanity of all of this simply boggles my mind. For sure there are concepts and ideas that are as foreign and dangerous to us now as Lincoln’s Army was in 1865. We must battle these isopodous ideas. Neo-Conservative thought is contrary to all we stand for. Supporting the National Republican party is foolish; it will get us no where. I will not disagree with this. I speak out against those items time and time again.

The fact is that if we do not build a political power base we will not win. We will not build that base with die-hard doctrinaires. We will only succeed by reaching out to ordinary Southerners and pulling them closer to us on issues that are important to them. We will only succeed by expressing and exposing our values and principles to an ignorant and uniformed populace.

We must never abandon the principles of our forefathers. We must not forget what they fought and died for. They fought for the right of self-determination. They fought under flags but not for a flag. Only a fool would lay down his life for a piece of cloth. My Great grand father, great great grand father and his brothers were not fools.

Ah yes flags are important. At my home on a Federal military installation I fly several. I begin the week with Big Red (the flag that The Citadel Corps of Cadets flew when they fired the first shot of the War). On Wednesday of Each week I fly the SC Sovereignty flag to represent my belief that SC is a Sovereign State. On Thursday through Saturday I fly the SC Flag to represent my state and the place of my loyalty. On Sunday I fly the Christian flag to represent my obedience to my Lord. Flying flags is important but they alone will not win freedom for my home nor does the act of flying flags make me a real patriot. Conversely, if I did not fly them it would not mean I was less of a patriot.

I have yet to feel the assault of those that might question my Southerness. After reviewing the general history of the movement over the last ten years and the various squabbles and spats I am sure my day is coming. I am perfectly willing to arrange to meet any man face to face that would dare challenge my heritage, principles or conviction for the cause. Just be sure to include your physical address in any misguided barbs hoisted in my direction (either that or avoid using your self appointed Southern detector on me at all).

I have said this before and I will continue saying it. If we ever hope to win we must pull our heads out of the sand and build an effective movement that can and will win. We will not do that by “eating our own young”.

Y’all think about it.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Premature Farewell

I spent the night cuddled in the warm and loving arms of my wife. I spent the morning playing ball with my kids and fishing with my son. My plans for the afternoon included digging through my various "kit bags" and beginning the process of packing the essentials. I have done all of this so often it is a routine. Then the phone rang.

My boss informed me that the tasking (i.e. order) that was to send me back over had been canceled. It seems that I am not going anywhere anytime soon. Of course these things change on what often seems to be a moments notice; things may change tomorrow for all I know. I have and do live with that reality. For now, however, I am to stay where I am.

On the bright side, I had a nice day of leave with my kids and my wife was especially amorous last night and this morning.

It seems that Providence wishes my current fight to be one of words in the ongoing struggle to perpetuate the truth and justice of the Southern cause and the cause of liberty and freedom from all people.

I shall accept this task and soldier on with renewed vigor. It seems that the events of the last month in this regard have been most encouraging.

I have continued my dialogue with Cory Burnell and the folks involved with Christian Exodus. The core group involved with this movement is on to something.

I recently be began corresponding with members of the SCLoS. My conversations with Larry Salley have been most encouraging. It is refreshing to realize that their are so many of my Citadel brothers working so hard in this area of our movement. I looked forward with great anticipation to actually meeting Larry and others face to face and was saddened that this event would be delayed by my departure.

For now it seems I shall remain a minor thorn in the side of the ignorance perpetuated by the Empire and a meager beam of light shining the truth and justice of our cause for those that will read to see.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Until Johnny comes marching home again...

El Cid just received orders to go and play ONE MORE TIME in the Grand Imperial War. I do not shun nor shirk this responsibility. Being in boots is what I have done my entire adult life (with two notable exceptions when I decided to leave for a very brief period and found I missed it too much).

For a time I was very much into genealogy. My research efforts were greatly aided by the fact that my family has been pretty meticulous in preserving our history. Add to that the fact that one of my aunts had done yeoman’s work in filling in the gaps long before I became interested in researching my family.

My family has produced soldiers in every generation. In most generations we had one or two career soldiers. This is a fact we have documented well to a time long before we crossed the big water. I had the pleasure of visiting a tatoo performed by the The 2nd Regiment. Duke of Hamilton's Horse - Perthshire on a visit to Scotland. My ancestors served in that regiment in 1651 against the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell.

I shall not attempt to list neither each ansector nor every conflict. Suffice it to say as far back as we can trace WE WERE THERE. This is something that I grew up with, it is my heritage and it is what I was born to be.

My world views are pretty clear I suppose to anyone that bothers to read my postings here and on other sites. I am a patriot to my home; I am loyal to my duties. These things often come into conflict and yet I am left to soldier on.

Folks often ask me , if I do not believe in the agenda of those that would build an empire of a republic and pervert all that was sacred in the hope for America, why do I serve. Am I just a bloodthirsty mercenary that will serve in any army available? Are my principles so weak that I can talk the good fight but not live it?

My duties are many. To my nation I have pledged my life more or less. The fact that my nation was invaded and has been subjected does not change this. The Empire has through its meddling and bullying dragged us into war. So long as good southern men march off to serve I will be there with them. That is another portion of my duty.

One of the brightest points of my service is sitting down beside some young son of the South in some desolate far away place and talking about home. I simply love soldiers and soldiering. There are too many bad apples in the ranks of men that ought to be leaders for me to abandon our fine boys in an hour of need.

Do not be fooled. There are many of us Southerners bearing the real brunt of the conflicts Washington has engaged in. Fine, brave, good boys that need people of principle and character in their midst to look out for them.

We can talk with great and grandiose words about what ought to be. We can plan for a better future but the fact is that future is not here yet. Until that day comes many of our Southern brothers will continue to serve and fight and some die. I resolve to be there beside them.

I am not certain when I will leave. It will be soon. In the mean time I am concentrating on spending as much time as possible with my wife and children. Obviously they have a higher priority than any meager words I might have to offer here.

I am not certain if I shall be blogging much once I leave. There is a time and a place for "higher thoughts" and there is a time to concentrate on the tasks at hand. Once I am gone I doubt I will dedicate much time to anything more than the task at hand.

I plan to post a few thoughts (as time allows -late at night or early in the morning) in the next week or so. I expect that after that El Cid will be silent for awhile.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

New from the Desk of Robert Lloyd

The Bushwhacker Blog: "This article should probably have been titled 'And Other Things the Confederacy Should Stay Away From'"

Excerpt from a Robert Lloyd piece over at the Missouri Bushwhacker. Interesting thought piece that inspires consideration of all manner of items we take for granted under federal rule. What is the right and proper use of public money, our money. What sort of behavior does certain usage of public money engender?

All good points, this article only touched on one aspect of the dilemma brought about when a people become accustomed to living under bad government for too long. We begin to accept things that are contrary to our principles as commonplace and maybe even right.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

National Review: An Army That Drawls: Johnny Reb goes to Iraq, and everywhere else

National Review: An Army That Drawls: Johnny Reb goes to Iraq, and everywhere else: "But there is one area of life where a drawl won't hurt you: the military. It might even help. While the West is known for rugged individualists (save for California, which provides wine, women, and tap dancers), the Midwest for solid citizens, and the Northeast for industrialists, intellectuals, and ethnic sham artists, the South is the land of grunts and generals."

Excellent thought piece. Nearly 45% of the US military is comprised of Southerners. Of this number the majority of those serve in the Army and Marine Corps. I took a look at the Army Green Book last year and while it is hard to use the demographic numbers presented there to fully prove what is a generally held assumption that white Southerners disproportionately prefer combat arms the statistics do support this observation.

You see this most profoundly if you spend some time with one of the Ranger regiments. There the percentage of good ole boys with a collection of various forms of our wonderful dialect prevails. Regular combat arms units also have a higher percentage of Southerners than you ought to expect based upon our composition in the general population.

Why? Some fool might claim it is simply a matter of economics. That is of course not true. Many of the young men that choose to pursue careers as Rangers have the mental aptitude to take on more technical jobs. If it was all about the “poor South” and opportunity more of these folks would seek other military jobs.

Proportionately Southerners that are black often seek combat service and service support jobs in higher percentages. There are of course many black Southerners that serve in combat arms assignments and I am in no way denigrating them. I am simply pondering the cause for the high percentage of Southern whites that seek out and serve in combat arms jobs.

It is of course all about culture. We fear death less than someone raised without a Christian foundation. It is heritage. As a people much of our heritage derives from the Scots that first settled much of the South. This is the stuff that a people are made of and it is not something that easily dies.

I have always enjoyed my time in the military partly because no matter where in this wide world I was stationed I could find grits for breakfast and at least once per week collard greens would be served for supper.

Much has changed; the federal government has tried very hard to rid the officer corps of its Southern bias. This has been partly successful over the last few years with a marked reduction in the overall quality of the corps. You really cannot fit square pegs in round holes but the powers that be still try.

It is interesting to consider that the American Empire is built on the bones of Southerners much like the British Empire was built on the bones of Scots. Basically we are the same people serving a new empire that has the same disdainful view of our culture and liberty.

As Jeff Adams point out in this piece we Southerners are a curious lot!

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Two new essays at ASP

Be sure to view Secessionist No. 9 by Professor H. Lee Cheek. This paper tackles the issue of taking Secession seriously.

Also Secessionist No. 10 by Dr. Thomas E. Woods is now posted.

Two very good essays.

View the complete index of papers

Monday, June 14, 2004

"Click It or Ticket" Sticks It To Drivers

: "...Click It or Ticket is an annual, nationwide program, which this year runs May 24th through June 6th. According to Buckle Up America, it 'combines strict enforcement of safety belt laws with targeted advertising.' It includes 'checkpoints,' 'saturation patrols,' and a $30 million TV and radio ad blitz -- funded, of course, by Congress.

'Most people buckle up for safety,' says New Jersey's Division of Highway Traffic Safety (whose home page shows a cop standing next to the Grim Reaper with the words, 'We're both watching,' as I write this). 'But for some people, it is the threat of the ticket that spurs them to put on a safety belt.' Thus, Click It or Ticket is a 'zero tolerance' program.

You know who else ran 'zero tolerance' programs? Adolf Hitler..." Read more

I have always looked at this "click it or ticket" thing as just another way for the government to get into my life. Heck I grew up as a kid running virtually amuck in the rear seat belt. My first car, a '67 Mustang, had no seat belts.

Wearing a seat belt is smart of course. I do it now becasue it makes sense....I do not need the government to tell me that or to punish me if I want to be stupid.

This is just another invasion of personal liberty and an increase in the power of the government.


SOMETHING WORTH FIGHTING FOR: "Some groups of American citizens now feel our government has gotten totally out of hand. Duh. They should have seen this coming in 1965 when Lyndon B. Johnson, then-president, announced his 'Great Socialist Society'"

Dorothy is another lady very much angry at the oppressors.

The Revolution Has Started: Haman's Gallows and the Mordecai Element - The Revolution Has Started: Haman's Gallows and the Mordecai Element

Interesting read! Liz seems very angry.

A Brief Note On The Terror War

No Treason!: "Go burn a Koran on your front lawn. Then, go sit on your front lawn holding your shiny, new, unregistered machinegun.

Question: Who will come after you first, the jihadists, or your local police? "


Voting for the Constitution Party

Dixie Internet.Com - Your Southern Source For Southern News!: " I would respectfully suggest that if conservatives and Christians continue to support George Bush and the Republican Party, a better take on the entire political scene would be to suggest that the entire country is in fact, going somewhere very quickly--straight down the tube. "

Pastor Mark Dankof hammers home the point I try to make here continually. It is always better to vote and act based upon principles rather than expediency

How Will Republicans Honor Reagan's Legacy?

the How Will Republicans Honor Reagan's Legacy?

"Republicans have consistently looked to Reagan as an icon in the fight against big government, yet it was the GOP that presided over the largest government growth spurt in recent memory. Government has grown more expensive and more intrusive in the last four years under a Republican administration than it did during the previous eight years when a Democrat ran the White House."

More food for thought on the Reagan legacy, or more to the point the Republican abandonment of that legacy. Good piece by Lee Shelton

Today's America

Today's America: "Reuters today tell us just how Orwellian today's America is. The wire service leads a piece entitled 'Americans would trade rights for security - experts' with this paragraph:

NEW YORK, June 7 (Reuters) - In today's America, prisoners are held incommunicado for years, newspapers can't photograph soldiers' coffins returned from Iraq and the government can secretly track the books citizens read and the movies they watch."

Fits well with our definition of tyranny over at the Southern Nationalist

Was Reagan the 1st neoconservative?

WorldNetDaily: Was Reagan the 1st neoconservative?: "Would Ronald Reagan have invaded Iraq? Would he have declared a doctrine of preventive war to keep any rival nation from rising to where it might challenge us? Would he have crusaded for 'world democratic revolution'? Was Reagan the first neoconservative? "

I am of course still rethinking and then rethinking again Ronald Reagan. Pat Buchanan makes a pretty good case that although Reagan ushered the Neo-cons into power, especially in his second term, he was not a neo-con himself.

More food for thought.....

I suppose my biggest beef with Reagan these days is that he decided to have The Battle Hymn of the Republic played so often at his various services. (yes I am certain he had a large part in the planning and music selection)

The Perils of Hegemony

The Perils of Hegemony: "Indeed, the Founding Fathers of the United States had such a fear of uncontained power, even in the hands of their elected fellow countrymen, that they made the separation and balancing of powers the outstanding feature of their constitution."

Good piece except the assertion that the US march toward hegemony was "accidental".

Saturday, June 12, 2004

News/Commentary Page

We have a new "News Blog" at The Southern Nationalist. The intent is to mostly post links to news items of interest with light commentary. If I can get my buds that help out with SN to post a little I expect we ought to be able to scavage the net for notable items. If you see a story that needs to be added please email me.

AP Wire | 06/11/2004 | Limbaugh announces end of 10-year marriage

AP Wire | 06/11/2004 | Limbaugh announces end of 10-year marriage: "Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh announced Friday that he and his wife, Marta, were divorcing."

I am not going to attempt to pass judgment on the entire concept of divorce. I will simply state that marriage is a sacred institution and a solemn commitment. I believe that one ought not enter into it lightly nor leave the commitment just because things are hard.

There is no doubt that marriage can be hard. It takes men and women of real principle to see it through at times. A whole heck of a lot of people get divorced in this country. I am not saying that people ought not get divorced under any circumstance, just that maybe the high divorce rate is indicative of a failing of some core values of family and of keeping ones commitment. It is just so easy to treat marriage as a conditional arrangement that one can quit whenever they want.

Hopefully, I have not alienated every single person that has went through a divorce at this juncture. We all do what we think is right. My points are really focused on what society says is right. Our society has transformed to the point that the general attitude is that it is just better to get divorced than to try and work through problems and keep the commitments we have made. In one sense we have become a society of quitters.

Rush Limbaugh has as much as anyone else in the "New Conservative" movement served as a focal point and mouth piece for the cause. Thousands of very conservative Christians, small government believers, Constitutionalist and even libertarians have at times joined the ranks of the ditto heads. It seems that in the person of Limbaugh and the causes he championed we saw our very best hope to achieve our goals.

Limbaugh began as what we saw as an amplification of the principles espoused by Ronald Reagan. During the Clinton years we saw Limbaugh as a voice announcing the evil of the Clinton administration. It has only been since the installation of Bush II that many have began to see Limbaugh for what he really is.

What is he really? Is he really a man that stands on the principles of conservativism? Does he represent the goals of the Christian right? Is he at all a friend to those of libertarian beliefs? Does he really represent and advocate the principles of the Constitution as originally intended? Is he even a man of person principles and values that we ought to listen to?

The answer of course is NO to each of these. Limbaugh is firmly a member of the Party of Lincoln. He has stated several times recently his fondness for that man. He is not an advocate of smaller government. He really just wants to move pieces and parts of the government around. He does not support or defend Christian principles. he is certainly no friend to libertarians, even his economic beliefs are not as free market oriented as he attemtops to appear at times.

His political views are based much more on expedience than principle. This is his biggest flaw. It is the flaw of all men of Lincoln's and FDR's ilk. The idea that whatever is best to fix a short-term problem is acceptable without regard to long standing principles is a dangerous one.

Rush was forgiven by many for becoming addicted to drugs. After all it was just prescription drugs, right? Thousands still forgive him for his lack of real political principle-after all who else will stand up to the liberals?

The problem with listening to a man that bases his opinions on current expediency instead of solid principles is that invariably he will go far from the true path.

Rush is no friend to true conservatives or our movement. He has in fact confused and led astray thousands for far to long. It is time that we woke up and turned this guy off.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Latin American Interventions by Yankee Imperialist

For anyone that tends to get caught up in the "neo-conic" - my country right or wrong mentality, it is important to consider history occasionally.

So many of us that are true patriots are often very susceptible to jingoistic emotional upswellings. We ought to let our principles rule over our emotions at times like that.

Do we really believe that anyone else has the right to tell us what to do? Do we really think we ought to go around telling others what to do? Is it not plausible to assume that just maybe if we left other people alone and let them live the way that they want just like what we want for ourselves that we might have an easier time in the world?

I am certainly not a "blame America first" sort of guy that is so often found on the crazed left. They have an agenda. I have principles. One of my principles is simply that I wish to live free and I have no desire to deny that right to others. I wish to live free from the threat of a bully government, restrictive laws and the free from the threat of other nations threatening our freedom. It just does not seem unreasonable that we ought to consider the Golden Rule and apply it to International Affairs.

Here is a sample of Yankee Imperialism visited on just one continent. The same has occurred all over the world in one form or anotherÂ…and continues apace now.

Why does the World hate the US and wish to blow up the symbols of Yankee Mercantilism? A history of meddling, invading and interference is just one reason why.

History of U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean

1823: The Monroe Doctrine declares Latin America to be in the United States "sphere of influence."

1846: The U.S. provokes war with Mexico and acquires half of its territory, including Texas and California.

1855: U.S. adventurer William Walker invades Nicaragua with a private army, declares himself president, and rules for 2 years.

1898: The U.S. declares war on Spain and as a result annexes Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii.

1901 : With the Platt Amendment, the U.S. declares its unilateral right to intervene in Cuban affairs.

1903: The U.S. encourages Panama's independence from Colombia in order to acquire the Panama Canal rights.

1905: The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine declares the U.S. to be the policeman of the Caribbean; the Dominican Republic is placed under a customs receivership.

1912 : U.S. Marines invade Nicaragua and occupy the country almost continuously until 1933.

1914: Mexican refusal to salute the U.S. flag provokes the shelling of Veracruz by a U.S. battleship and the seizure of parts of the city by U.S. Marines.

1933: U.S. Marines finally leave Nicaragua, but are replaced by a well-trained and well-armed National Guard under the control of Anastasio Somoza.

1954: The CIA engineers the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala; 30 years of military dictatorship, repression, and violence follow.

1961 : The U.S. attempts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban government at the Bay of Pigs.

1965: Johnson sends 22,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to combat the constitutional forces trying to regain power.

1973: The CIA helps overthrow the democratic government of Allende in Chile in favor of a bloody dictatorship.

1981: The Reagan Administration begins the contra war against Nicaraguan civilians.

1983: The U.S. invades Grenada to overthrow a popular government.

1989: The U.S. invades Panama to arrest accused drug dealer Manual Noriega.

1990 : The U.S. intervenes in the Nicaraguan election process through covert and overt means.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

March of Time- Part I

The study of history has been a lifelong love and interest of mine. It is no surprise that all of my views and opinions are colored greatly by things that have gone before.

I have thought much recently about how future historians will evaluate this period of history. By this period I mean from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the period when people finally accept and agree on the new order of things. It is of course impossible to know because as of yet we do not know the true nature of the new order of things. I believe one can, however, reasonably examine the two forces that are competing to establish the New Order.

First I think it is safe to establish what will not be significant in the new status quo that is now being formed. Nation-States formed on arbitrary geopolitical arrangements are a thing of the past. The individual sovereignty of small nations will be of little significance in the future. Cultural and religious groups that seek to form nations based on shared identity and common bonds and the hegemonic powers of the world each seek the disempowerment of what I term false states. What is a false state? I would term any nation that is composed of different groups of cultures and religions under the control of a central government as a false state.

Certainly the separatist and the hegemons have vastly different views of the current national structure and they each have different ideas about how the old order ought to be abandoned.

To the hegemon the current collection of nation-states are just annoyances. Hegemonic action thus far reveals that the view from that side is that nation-states ought to be brought under a firmer collective umbrella. That national sovereignty is violative in the interest of the hegemon. Economic and political cooperation is the order of the day with the eventual goal of including all small powers within the hegemon’s sphere into a collective that once entered cannot be left without the peril of “police action”. From the hegemon perspective small nation-states rule autonomously only so long as their policies and government fit the needs of the hegemon. We see the beginnings of this already in Iraq; we have seen it for the last 100 years in Latin America.

To the separatist, national governments that do not reflect their religious and cultural needs are unjust rulers. Secession movements all over the world have for years advocated self-rule. The fall of the Soviet Empire and the destruction of a common enemy have given rise to a renewed effort by many of these groups. Yugoslavia was a perfect example of a false nation-state. After the fall of communism the various groups that had been forced to live under collective rule demanded and gained a self-rule. Wars of culture and religion are as old as history itself. People fight and die in order to establish their home and to be ruled by those like them. Palestine, Northern Ireland and a dozen other places are the result of this sort of conflict. Many of the insurgents that fight now in Iraq are really just separatist fighting to be ruled by their kind.

The wars of idealism ushered in during the late 18th Century are a new phenomenon to mankind. Wars of nationalism arrived only in the 19th century. Wars of Empire have a varied sort of start and stop history but it is safe to say that these types of conflicts have occurred for thousands of years. As stated above, wars and conflicts centered on self-determination are the oldest known to man.

What does history then teach us regarding the current order of things and the nature of things to come? The current battles and conflicts are really not about idealism; although to the separatist involved there is a degree of idealism associated with their causes. Neither are these conflicts nationalistic in nature. Sure the hegemons term their effort in nationalistic terms but that is not at all what is occurring. We are left with the last two types of conflict; two sides (loosely speaking because obviously all of the separatist in the world are not conjoined) fighting a conflict for very different reasons. The winner will determine the nature of the new order. Will we enter a new age of empire or will the current system devolve into many nation-states ruled by governments that share the same outlook as those governed?

I believe it is really that simple. The two forces really at conflict can be identified just so.

Already the mechanisms that will usher in the new age of empire are firmly set. The nations of Europe have surrendered and are surrendering almost daily more and more of their sovereignty to the European Union. As each court case is ruled on in Brussels that affects individual initiative of the various states the Union moves closer and closer to establishing itself as supreme over the sovereignty of any member state. Economically and militarily a unified Europe will make a significant peer competitor to the United States.

The United States has been well on its way toward empire; first in small ways in this hemisphere and in the last forty years in other parts of the world. To be certain empire in the modern sense does not mean the same as the empire held by the British. The US has for the most part traded in occupation for control; military and economic. When those fail political control in the form of “regime change” and “nation building” has been used.

The humanist when faced with this reality would say that hegemony is obviously the better choice. If the separatist were to win it would be only after many battles and conflicts. The old order will not pass away without a fight and the growing hegemonies will not sit by and watch their growing power eroded by the rise of upstart independent states; states that are not as controllable as the old nationalist powers. A separatist victory would mean years of conflict and the death of countless millions as the new order was sorted out. The humanist would want none of this and would choose empire.

The libertarian sort would regret the social upheaval required for a separatist victory and the dissolving of the nation-state model. A pragmatic view history reveals that conflict has been part of every generation. The libertarian would assert that death in the pursuit of freedom is better than surrender to empire and tyranny.

So there we have it. With the exception of a few scattered and isolated incidents that involve purely nationalistic issues around the world we can place all the conflicts and troubles occurring almost everywhere into this context. The battles fought today are truly about the nature of the world to come. If the separatist can wear down the hegemons economically and then defeat the old national powers in their various regions they win and possibly usher in a new era. On the other hand if the developing empires are able to use the current conflicts to expand their power and reach this will only serve to expedite the day when nation-state sovereignty means very little.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

Moron Historian

I read this article on the Christian Exodus movement thanks to Chad

I am left wondering what two-bit diploma mill the austute investigative reporters at News 13 visited to find historian and political consultant Ned Barnett.

I have a degree in history and it is obvious to me that this fellow spent his time reading very different books than I. More likely he recieved his education via telecourses on PBS. The depth and breadth of his knowledge can be summed up in the few statements he made.

Consider this from the "esteemed" Mr. Historian:

"I'm a fairly strict interpreter of the Constitution and I can tell you there is no legal basis for any state withdrawing from the U.S. That issue was settled, once and for all, by the American Civil War."

When has a war ever settled any legal question? Might does not make just proves that might wins. As for reading the Constitution as a "stirct" interpreter does this Mr. Barnett presume that he has some greater power of intepretation than say, Jefferson of Calhoun?

Barnett attempts later in the piece to define patriotism:

"Politically, it's all a sham ... because these groups are minorities even within the fundamentalist Christian movement. Most fundamentalists are also profoundly patriotic, and would not want to leave the U.S. under any circumstances."

I have served in the military of the US for almost 20 years. Went into foriegn lands with hostile intent three times. I have killed because I was ordered to do a job and that was at times part of the job. I happen also to be a Christian and a patriot. But according to this fellow, patriot Chirstians would not dream of leaving the US.

Define Patriotism for me Mr. expert on things you do not understand. Is it blind obedience and loyalty to a system? Are you equating patriotism with the "my country right or wrong crowd"?

Patriotism is something much more. It is love of home, of values, of principle. The Government in Washington is neither mine nor anyone else's country. It is just a government. My patriotism is much deeper and more meaninful than loyalty to a system.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

American Secession Project

Brian McCandliss has written an excellent piece that has been included in the Secessionist Papers as No. 6. Be sure to read it here.

Also, we still need enlightened minds and writers to submit their work in support of the proper configuration of our Constitutional Republic, States' Rights and the principle of secession. Visit here if you are willing and able to help.

UPDATE: Michael Peirce has also submitted an excellent piece, No.7.
The Project page is now up and functional (mostly). If you work with a group that in anyway advocates States' Rights or secession this project needs your help. Help the project help us all. The victory of any state or group of states in the fight to regain autonomy is a victory for us all. Please visit and if you agree with the project's goals please pass the word around.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Monday, June 07, 2004

Southern Heritage and the 2004 Presidential Election

Southern Heritage and the 2004 Presidential Election: "As November approaches, Southerners - Southern conservatives in particular - find themselves at a crossroads. Most have resigned themselves to the fact that their hopes and dreams hinge on whether a Republican or Democrat sits in power in Washington; they believe they must decide which of these two parties will have the least negative impact on Southern culture and heritage. "

Have we not had enough of the lies, half-truths and empty promises of the party of Lincoln? How many of us still listen daily to the unprincipled lap dog of the Republican party - Rush? Too many I would venture to guess. We Southern Conservatives bought into the Republican lie and galvinized our support for them 25 years ago. What has it gained for us? Are we better off now as a culture than we were before we began running to the polls to elect Republicans to four of the last six presidential terms? NO WE ARE NOT.

There is not a dimes worth of difference in ideological terms between the Republicans and Democrats. It is time that We Southern Conservaties started voting with our principles and not for the guy that says he is closest to our views. To do anything other than that is truly a wasted vote.

I am leaning more and more toward Peroutka

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Sunday, June 06, 2004

The farewell that ought to have been

It is often regrettable when we express our first thoughts without a pause for a second thought. It seems I have committed this offense in my first expression of my thoughts of the passing of Ronald Reagan.

When a man grows up and attains a worldview of his own he often puts away the heroes of his youth. The figures that loomed so large to the growing mind often shrink once a man becomes aware of the world and begins feeling his way toward his own identity. This is not always the case. John Wayne was a boyhood hero of mine; he still looms large for his portrayals of what a man ought to be.

Ronald Reagan was of course another hero of my formative years. During the 1990’s I became extremely disillusioned with the party that Reagan helped to galvanize. I often thought back to the promise and the hope that Reagan himself inspired in so many of America’s true conservatives and I was saddened by the reality that we had achieved none of our goals. Instead those of us that of the conservative ilk had wedded ourselves to the leadership of the neo cons and for so long so many blindly followed where they led. So often it seemed to me that the cause of conservatism was lost. I blamed this in large part on Reagan for it was he that first shined the light of hope our way and rallied the troops around what we thought was our cause.

Today I watched on CSPAN Reagan’s speech to the 1993 Republican Convention. Considering the then not well known deterioration of his mental condition this speech was one of his finest. It was so to speak a capstone event; a speech befitting a retiring and victorious conqueror just returned from foreign lands and headed off to green pastures and a deserved retirement. In a very true sense this is what was happening that day. Reagan had lead America out of the mediocrity of the 1970’s and in 1992 we emerged as the worlds single Empire. He had vanquished his foe.

No matter what I may feel now about the conservative hope and promise never realized by the Reagan revolution and no matter what may be said about the inherent wrong that exists in Americas’ path toward Empire I must say that even still Reagan moves me. As I watched the 1992 speech I understood full well why the man became such a hero of mine way back then. He made you feel good, he gave you hope, he talked about the future as a bright and shining destination. He was the great communicator.

It is for future discussion to determine what the events of the 80’s and 90’s will mean. For now it is sufficient to say that Ronald Reagan was a great man. Great in the sense that any man that significantly influences the course of events disproportionate to the position he holds is great. Reagan did that. He inspired a nation to follow his vision and he succeeded in defeating the enemies he saw before him.

Disagree now as much as I might with the path he placed us on I am still inspired by the man. I shall miss and mourn him.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Saturday, June 05, 2004

Reagan's Legacy

Ronald Reagan died today and the number of words that will be written about this occurrence on the Internet and in print will undoubtedly number in the millions. I feel compelled to say a few words because the presidency of Reagan had a significant impact on me and my political outlook.

I was a teenager during the 1980’s, I graduated high school in 1986 and college in 1990. All of my fond reckless memories are from this era. This is also the time that I became politically aware. During the hostage crises of 1979 I first became interested in things political. I had known more or less from early boyhood that being a soldier was something I wanted to do. The events surrounding the Iranian hostage crisis served to thrust me into the Reaganite camp rather firmly.

In 1979 I asked my mother if I could miss school to attend a speech Reagan was giving locally during the campaign. After the speech I deftly positioned myself right beside the exit door and was able to shake the man’s hand. After his election I wrote him a letter to thank him and I received a letter back with and automated but authentic looking Reagan signature at the bottom.

Reagan’s early talk of national defense and being strong before the world appealed to my awakening sense of what the world ought to be. I found myself enthralled by Reagan’s speeches and his words.

When he spoke of the Evil Empire and the need to stand on a wall and defend against it I was ready. I was only seventeen for a month, the minimum age that the Army would accept a person, and a junior in high school but still I joined up. I completed basic training the summer between junior and senior years and served in the National Guard all through high school and college. I was predisposed and maybe even destined to serve anyway but my early entry is due in large part to Reagan.

Those that write Reagan’s legacy will say many things. One of the truest of the things that will be said is that he was a coalition builder. Reagan brought in to the Republican Party a myriad of disenchanted groups. The Christian Right saw Reagan as the best hope to restore to America a moral base. States’ Rights and small government types heard within the words of Reagan a return to the right kind of government. Ordinary American without deep ideological beliefs say Reagan as the man to move us away from something.

To be sure there was something to worthy of the desire to move on. The 1970’s were in essence a very low point for America. Americans of all sorts looked to Reagan to move America forward.

As we examine the legacy of Regan we must ask what did we move away from or more aptly stated what did we move toward? Were the hopes and dreams of the Reagan Republicans realized?

Another foundation in the legacy of Reagan will undoubtedly be the he looked the bear in the eye and forced the Soviet Empire to crumble. This is something so stuck in the realm of legend that it is hardly worth disputing. has an interesting set of statistics that demonstrate that although the first two years of Reagan’s presidency contained massive defense spending increases the following six years did not. They also show that the Soviet system was in trouble long before the 1980 increase here and that inevitably the system was destined to collapse.

Reagan’s legacy includes the concept that he was and always was a conservative. Reagan has missed most of the neo-con backlash because this idea has taken root and is not easily removed. It must be remembered that Reagan voted for FDR each time he ran. He supported liberal and quasi-socialist candidates as late as 1950. In many respect Reagan might be considered the first Neo-con.

Instead of the various groups getting the things they wanted from the Party of Reagan they have been slowly “waking” up over the last fifteen or so years to realize that the Party of Reagan is not the party of Jefferson. It is in fact the Party of Lincoln. It is a party that does not wish to do away with the socialism of FDR, they just want to change it a little. It is not a party of small and limited government. It is not a party of Christian values. Ronald Reagan rebuilt and redefined the Republican Party on the hopes and dreams of millions of people that wanted something different. Instead of Reagan moving us in the direction that these new Reaganites really anted to go we left the 1980’s set on a straight path toward Empire.

I shall not speak ill of the dead, especially a man that was once such a large hero of mine. Reagan will no doubt go down in the pantheon of “heroes” beside Lincoln, FDR and other sorts that have made America what it is. I will mourn his loss but I will not celebrate his legacy.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid


You do not know but I am adopted. I thank the Good Lord on each of my birthdays for that wonderful and brave woman that carried me to term and gave me up for adoption. I do not know her circumstances or why she decided to place me for adoption. I can only assume that she thought it best. I often wonder how much easier it might have been for her to simply abort the birth. She did not and for that I hold this unknown lady in high regard.

Abortion is wrong, it is as simple as that. The documents that give any legitimacy at all to our government guarantee "life". The only possible condition which I see abortion being legitimate would be in the event of dire threat to the life of the mother (not possible threat...Dire threat)

Visit Carolina Christians for Life and offer the help them in their cause if you can. The have an event in Greensboro, North Carolina 19 June that they need assistance with.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Friday, June 04, 2004

Pass the sovereignty please

I laughed, I cheered, I cried....
David Black makes the point that if we can "pass out sovereignty" to Iraq why can't we get a little here?

Dear President Bush:

The United States of America was formed as just that—a union of sovereign states into a federal government. The concept behind our government was simple. Our “Creator” gave each of us “unalienable rights,” and we in turn gave some of these rights to our respective state governments. Then the states gave a portion of their rights to a central government that could perform certain wide-ranging tasks—national defense, the conduct of foreign relations, and the like. The framers of our Constitution were careful to make it clear that the powers not granted to the federal government were reserved to the states and ultimately to “We the People.”

Mr. President, all we want is the restoration of a constitutional republic that the Founding Fathers established in this country. They didn’t have in mind some gigantic federal bureaucracy with all this power and control regulating our lives and our businesses. They had in mind a federal government that would abide by the Tenth Amendment. It was small, it had limited powers, it took care of national events, and it defended our borders. It maintained the army and issued national currency. And all the rest of the rights and responsibilities, they said, belonged to the states, respectively, and the people. As Robert E. Lee once put it, “All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved, and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”

By the way, Mr. President, we argue that it is impossible to have a republic as originally envisioned by our Founders and also have an empire at the same time. We are outspoken in our opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq because we do not believe you can export democracy at gunpoint. We have this radical notion that the U.S. can hold the torch of liberty high without getting involved in military skirmishes around the globe.

In short, Mr. President, we think little of big government with all of its attendant horrors, including an abysmal government “education” system. We feel that the only hope for a rebirth of freedom in America is to restore sovereignty to the states and to the people by getting the federal government completely out of every area where it has made such a mess, including health care, education, law enforcement, foreign aid, corporate welfare, and farm subsidies. Like your Republican colleague from Texas, Ron Paul, we want smaller government, an end to the welfare state, and an end to government intrusions into their lives and businesses
Read More

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

The 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment: "Unfortunately, most Americans are too ignorant of their own history to understand that the United States isn't a democracy, but a union of representative republics. Anyone who bothers to actually read the U.S. Constitution will see clearly we are a union of sovereign states, each guaranteeing a republican form of government. The idea of the founders was to have a strictly limited federal government, with the states handling the bulk of governmental matters (hence the constitution calling the federal government the agent of the states; a subordinate role for the federal government to the state governments.) The argument about States' Rights usually falls on deaf ears as being a "Southern thing" and an idea that died in the War Between the States. But that would only be true if the constitution died at the same time (which some would argue it did). American Nationalists (read neo-cons, faux patriots who scream "my country right or wrong", and socialists) reject States' Rights as an idea that was ever valid, but that would require a person to reject historical facts."
read more

My rant against the 14th Amendment was simply the beginning, there are several amendments following that piece of thievery that I intend to write about. Jeff Adams seems to have hit the nail on the head with the 17th Amendment and has saved me a little time when I work my way up that high in "amendment rants"

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

New Home of Secessionist Papers

The blog url for Secessionist Papers has moved to It is my sincere hope and desire to create at that location a site that contains not only the blog but an entire set of resources, ideas, articles and discussions about the legality, practicality, legitimacy and propriety of secession.

There are several groups in the US and worldwide that are currently working toward local independence. Groups in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Vermont, New Hampshire, Utah, Alaska, South Carolina and the South in general want independence for their states and/or region. The ideology of these various groups differ but the basic principles of sovereignty and the right of the people to establish government that reflects the values, principles and desires of the people are something that is common to all of these movements.

It is my hope to coordinate with members of all of these various groups and develop a resource that might assist each group in attaining their goals. In the big picture if any of the secessionist movements succeed it makes it far easier for other groups to follow.

If you are willing to assist in any way please visit this page and email me.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Thursday, June 03, 2004

Cory Burnell

I had the priviledge of speaking with Cory, president of ChristianExodus on the phone last night. I had visited the .org site and was very disturbed by some of the things I saw. I called and spoke with Cory's wife, I fired off several emails and late last night Cory returned my call.

My fear was, from the post on the forum, that this movement was about the craziness that the usual opponents claim. I found Cory to be the same reasonable, intelligent fellow that I perceived him to be from his writings posted on the SCLoS site and from his talk on Fox.

It seems that the organization is in the process of standing up a new web site. While this is being accomplished some nefarious sorts hijacked the forum. One particularly bad individual was impersonating Cory.

My support for this movement is redoubled now. There is nothing to fear, as the naysayers would claim, of any intention to install a theocracy. There is no indication that this is a cult. In fact the doctrine that Cory and I discussed is very reasonable and acceptable to anyone that believes in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. This movement is simply one of like minded folks. There is no intention to do anything other than install of form of government of and by the people.

This idea has merit and it can work. I challenge you to keep your eyes and ears open and endeavor to learn more about what this movement is all about. Secession seems to me the only real hope of restoring a Constitutional Republic in any place in North America.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

Ideology and Principles

In my post concerning America as an Empire I referenced a post on Southern Appeal. At the end of the post I mused that I did not really understand what it meant to be a Southern Federalist. Freddie, from Southern Appeal posted me a comment pointing me to information that might alleviate my ignorance in this matter. I always appreciate a furtherance of my education but I must admit I am still stumped on just what it means to be a Southern Federalist.

Of course I know full well what it means to be a federalist. This is an concept that I understand full well. I have pondered much on this matter in the last two days. I wonder how one might be a Southerner and a Federalist. I wonder if the Southern part of that description (the portion that ought to define principles) overrides the Federalist part (that which speaks to ideology).

I suppose that I had no real intention of judging or making a judgment statement about just how “conservative” the folks over at Southern Appeal are or are not. From my observation they are plenty conservative for my tastes. I agree with much of the commentary there and I have begun to make the site a routine read. When I questioned rhetorically what it meant to be a Southern Federalist I was really just wondering aloud how it could be that individuals that share much ideology in common can disagree on basic principles.

Southerners (i.e. people that are inheritors of the values, beliefs, culture and principles that make us what we are) are about as diverse as any other group. In reality it is only our shared history, the nature of our origin, our beliefs and culture that separate us as a distinct group from other Americans. We might sum up the difference as one of principle.

Principles are an interesting thing. They are unlike rigid rules or dogma that might exist in an ideology or belief system. Principles are a higher form or rules; guidelines really. Principles apply to all situations and can be used to form more specific rules to fit particular circumstances. Most importantly principles are applicable when there is no rule to guide a situation. Principles also guide us when the rules run counter to what we believe at our core.

Southerners being a diverse lot ascribe to and believe in many various ideologies. We find this in religion; some of us are Baptist, others Jews, some Presbyterian and others Catholic. The only principle that applies to true Southerners is that there is a God in the Universe; he is the God of Abraham and his word was passed down to us in ways that the groups mentioned above believe.

In politics we also find this diversity. Some of us are Democrats others Republican. Neither of these represents an ideology but rather a persuasion. Most Southerners follow a conservative libertarian (small L) ideology no matter which political party they vote for. This fits best with the principles that make Southerners Southern.

There are of course many in the South that are not Southern at all. This goes deeper than the mere place of birth or state of residence. Being a Southerner (capital S) really means believing in and acting based upon the principles of Southerness, as well as being “from here”, talking like us and all the other things that merely define southern (small S).

Key principles of Southerness are individual freedom and personal responsibility. There are of course several other principles but theses principles drive much of what options of ideology true Southerners might follow. A true Southerner would ever become a socialist or a communist for to do so would require him to renounce his principles.

Another key principle by which Southerners live states that; principles do not change. What is wrong today will be wrong tomorrow; what was right yesterday will be right tomorrow. In matters of principle there is never any room for compromise.

The very notion that all men ought to march to the same drum is offensive to Southerners. We accept diversity in ways that we are seldom given credit for. What we do not tolerate are those that decide to march in different directions. As long as a person lives by the general principles all is well and diversity is accepted.

Thus is the real problem in the Southern Movement; that is to say that there is no movement. Many good and true Southerners express themselves politically in various ways based upon their chosen ideology. Clashes in ideology often result in us tuning out the viewpoint of groups and individuals that march to a different drum. The result is that those precious few that believe in the principles never support or share with each other. Any web search of keywords relating to Southern politics will demonstrate this fact. There are hundreds of pages and sites out there, many of which agree in principle and only disagree on smaller matters.

My original post questioning what a Southern Federalist meant was probably misplaced and ought to be categorized as such. My original intent was to show that those that ascribe to a Federalist ideology and those of us that hold an Anti-Federalist viewpoint still share much in common if we are True Southerners. I looked around on the Southern Appeal site and I did not see any disagreement in principle. That was the point I wanted to make.

Since this issue of the difference of opinions among those that claim the beautiful privilege of being Southern has entered the discussion here I would like to ask a few questions of my Southern brothers and sisters that call themselves Federalist.

1. Believing that a Federal form of government works best is an acceptable point of view to bring to the table. However, why must it be accepted that the Federal government in Washington is the best answer? Is it not also possible to talk of several smaller federalist governments that rule for and by the people? Why would you be opposed to a federalist union of Northeastern, Western or even Southern states if that government more closely reflected the goals and needs of the people it governed?
2. Assuming that Federalist believe that their form of government requires solidarity of the various component states do you believe that there is ever a time that the government may be changed by the people? If so when and how?
3. Do you believe that once a federal form of government is formed that the people and all of their descendants are wed to that government with no hope of divorce?
4. What of a federal government that rules contrary to the principles and beliefs of a particular region or cultural group? Is that government truly ruling by the consent of the people? Is not such a situation really a form of tyranny for those forced to live in such a circumstance?
5. In a federalist system governed more or less democratically how might a small cultural group ever truly express its will? After all 51% of the people will always get what they want and the other 49% will get none of what they want. A small cultural group that comprises 25-30% of the population will always lose in such a circumstance.
6. The Soviet Union was a federal system. Would you propose that the composite republics that made up that empire lost all future claim to sovereignty on the day they were assimilated into the Soviet Union?
7. Should Texas have remained a part of the Mexican political system even though a large percentage of her citizenry wanted independence?
8. Is there ever a time or event that would lead you to say that it would be better to allow the various states of the Union to determine their own course rather than remain in the Union.(this is of course a trick question) It is obvious that I could name several things that a federal government might do that would be immoral and repulsive to freedom minded people. All men that love freedom and recognize that government must live by the contract with the governed must admit that there are times when bad governments must be done away with.

My point is that the divergence between Southerners on matters of political ideology is not as far apart as we might tell ourselves that it is. Every true Southerner knows and believes that much of what has transpired in Washington in the last 140 years is wrong. Our differences are not on what is wrong but how to fix it. Federalist might say the idea of secession in the 21st Century is extreme; secessionist would say that the belief that we can ever hope to influence and change the current federal system is naive. Of course this sort of stone throwing gets us nowhere.

We ought to realize and accept the issues of commonality that we share. If we are each Southerners and share in the inheritance we have been fortunate enough to gain then surely there ought to be some commonality among us. To the federalist I say, more power to you; if you can change the current system great. Until there are secessionist candidates on the ballot I will continue to vote for the least evil option available. In short we ought to accept that we share in a desire to change things as they are. If either of us succeeds we all win. If we each fail we all lose. Our enemy is common and our fates sealed together.