Almost Heaven


(Click to enlarge)

Most Americans over the age of 40 know how the state of West Virginia was formed. For the youngsters, or for readers in the Far Abroad, this is what happened:

During the Recent Unpleasantness (a.k.a. the American Civil War or the War Between the States) counties in the western part of Virginia voted to secede from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the Union. They then established themselves as the separate and independent State of West Virginia.

Those good folks out in Them Thar Hills are close kin to the rural residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, especially in the counties hard on the border with West Virginia — Buchanan, Tazewell, Bland, Giles, Craig, Alleghany, Bath, Augusta, Rockbridge, etc.

Now West Virginia is offering an opportunity to the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties and localities here in Virginia: If we want to secede from the tyrannical government in Richmond, we are invited to apply for admission to the State of West Virginia.

The counties up there along the Blue Ridge may well jump at the opportunity, and some of the ones down here in the Piedmont could follow suit. I don’t know if the same sentiment would extend all the way east to Tidewater and the Eastern Shore, but it could be that all the declared sanctuary counties and cities would want to stick together. If they do, most of the Commonwealth of Virginia will abscond to West Virginia, leaving only Northern Virginia (the Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy) and a few progressive islands such as Richmond and Albemarle County (with its embedded Li’l Kumquat, Charlottesville). In other words, the original Commonwealth of Virginia will have been almost completely reconstituted.

Now, that’s one of history’s little ironies.

Below is the full text (also archived here) of the bill introduced yesterday in the West Virginia House of Delegates:

House Concurrent Resolution 8

(By Delegates Howell, Summers, Shott, Householder, C. Martin, Hott, Graves, Cadle, Barnhart, J. Jeffries, Maynard, Phillips, Foster, Hamrick, Steele, D. Jeffries, Wilson, Waxman, Bartlett, Paynter and Linville)

[Introduced January 14, 2020]

Providing for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia

Continue reading

2nd Amendment Showdown in Virginia

Colion Noir is a lawyer and 2nd Amendment activist in Texas. In the following Fox News clip he discusses the plans to ban and/or register certain guns in Virginia, and the resulting pushback that has prompted 90 or more localities to vote themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.

Connecticut and New York passed similar laws a few years ago, but never attempted any systematic enforcement against citizens who refused to comply. Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam, however, has staked his political mojo on enforcing such laws after they are passed. If he doesn’t declare martial law and call up the National Guard, he’ll have to send in the state police to apprehend citizens who refuse to comply, since most sheriffs have vowed not to cooperate.

This will not end well.

The big question, though, is how many Democrat delegates will actually vote to pass these bills. Many of the newly-elected legislators represent districts whose localities have now turned themselves into 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. If you represented such a district, what would you do if you hoped to be re-elected?

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Trouble With a Capital “T”

In the following video a young man named Ben Joseph Woods gives testimony before the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors about the current political crisis in Virginia and the rest of the USA. Maj. Woods is a military veteran and an officer in the Marine Reserves, in addition to his current service as a law enforcement officer. He addresses not just the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary issue, but also the larger political crisis that has the country so deeply polarized.

This video was recorded in early December. It’s worth noting that since that time the number of sanctuary counties has grown to about 80 — that is, 90% of the counties in Virginia:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Southern-Fried Boogaloo

I was going through a crate of old memorabilia today and came across a box that once held “Dixie Pops”. Apparently they’re some sort of cheesy firework (“WARNING: DO NOT PUT IN MOUTH”), made in China in 1986. The box is empty now, so I can’t tell you exactly what it once contained.

What I want to know is whether the word “pops” is a verb. Because it seems to me that Dixie is going to start poppin’ pretty soon — at least here in the Old Dominion, if Governor Coonman has his druthers. A little poppin’ here and there, both north and south of the James River.

A fun trick! But see side panels for cautions.

Defend Liberty!

Inspired by yesterday’s post about 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries, Michael Copeland sends his thoughts on liberty.


The Triumphal Arch” by John Davidson
(Creative Commons: CC BY-SA 2.0)

Defend Liberty!

by Michael Copeland

The breakaway colonists of New England, Virginia, Pennsylvania and other colonies were, as Pat Condell rightly points out, not Americans, but Englishmen standing up for their English rights. They defended those “ancient liberties” with their lives, winning the War of Independence and establishing their own new nation with its famous Constitution.

What is less well-known is that they had their admirers in England. One of these, Sir Thomas Gascoigne, at Parlington, near Leeds in Yorkshire, erected a commemorative arch with the inscription:

LIBERTY IN N. AMERICA TRIUMPHANT MDCCLXXXIII

Liberty is not free, nor is it self-upholding. It is hard-won by a struggle, and kept in place by vigilance and effort. It needs men and women of principle and action to sustain it.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke

Defend liberty!

For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.

Sic Semper Tyrannis


(Click to enlarge [Hat tip: WRSA])

I’m in a cheerful mood this evening after reading the local news. As you can see from the map above, the deplorable rural hinterlands of Virginia, where citizens cling bitterly to guns and religion, have voted overwhelmingly to declare their localities 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries.

I don’t know Pulaski and Montgomery well enough to venture an opinion, but I expect Franklin, Prince Edward, Lunenberg, and Amelia to follow suit when their boards of supervisors vote.

Virginia turned blue last month because the banlieues of The Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy (Northern Virginia) — and to a lesser extent Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Richmond — are packed to the gills with millions of Yankees and foreigners. But it’s different out here in the boonies, where the memory of our ancient liberties is still fresh. After all, it was Virginia’s most famous son, Thomas Jefferson, who said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

The local papers are the best place to keep up with news on such topics. As you know, I’ve been reading The Farmville Herald online lately. I’ve maxed out the number of articles I can access without paying for a subscription, so I can’t give you all the interesting links. However, here’s a snip from an article by the redoubtable Alexa Massey about the vote by the Cumberland County Board of Supervisors a couple of days ago:

Sanctuary resolution adopted

by Alexa Massey

At the Dec. 10 Cumberland County Board of Supervisors meeting the board voted unanimously, 3-0, to pass a resolution declaring Cumberland County to be a Second Amendment sanctuary. District Two Supervisor Lloyd Banks was not present at the meeting and therefore did not participate in the vote.

The full resolution is as follows:

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and,

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), affirmed that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, and

[…]

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County Virginia:

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby declares Cumberland County, Virginia, as a “Second Amendment sanctuary,” and

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Cumberland County, Virginia, and

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its intent that public funds of the county not be used to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Cumberland County, or to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of said rights, and

That the Cumberland Board of Supervisors hereby declares its intent to oppose any infringement on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms using such legal means as may be expedient, including, without limitation, court action.

That really warms my heart. And the description of the response by the crowd attending the meeting provides additional inspiration:

Continue reading

Rural Virginians Resist the Assault Against Their 2nd Amendment Rights

The Democrats won control of both houses in the legislature after last month’s state elections here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth already has a Democrat governor, Ralph “Coonman” Northam, whose blackface caper was discussed here at great length (and hilarity) last winter. The lieutenant governor had a #MeToo issue, and the Attorney General had his own blackface moment. If Coonman had been forced to resign, the other two would have toppled like dominos, which would have left the Speaker of the House of Delegates as next in line to be governor. At the time of all the politically correct brouhaha last February, the Speaker was a Republican, so forcing anyone to resign became an impossibility. If the top men had been Republicans, or if there had been a Democrat available to fill in, those boys would have been out on their aspidistras quicker than you could say shoo-fly pie.

So… After that stroll down memory lane, we now return to the Brave New World of December 2019. All important statewide elected offices are currently held by Democrats. I suppose they could oust ol’ Coonman now, but it appears that all has been forgiven, and the race-baiters are willing to let bygones be bygones.

Our new masters in Richmond are flexing their legislative muscles, and have proposed a law that would designate tactical training in firearms as an “unlawful paramilitary activity”. Depending on how one reads the proposed law (and the level of one’s paranoia), it could be construed to prohibit a father from instructing his children in the proper use of their guns.

People out here in the hinterlands of the Commonwealth don’t always pay a lot of attention to the goings-on in the State Capitol, but this new monkey business has raised some hackles. It has afforded me great pleasure to read about the county sheriffs who have publicly announced that they will not enforce any new laws that infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. These officers of the law believe (correctly) that to do so would be a violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And a number of rural counties have jumped on the bandwagon and declared themselves 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties.

The latest county to join the trend (or at least discuss joining it) is Cumberland County. Cumberland is just to the northeast of Farmville, whose immigrant detention center was featured here last week. The Farmville Herald covered the Cumberland proposal today. I’ve been enjoying the Herald lately (local newspapers are the best news sources), and haven’t yet exhausted the allotted number of articles that I can read for free online, so I am able to offer some excerpts here.

One thing to be noted about this article is that the Cumberland Board of Supervisors moved their upcoming meeting to a school auditorium, anticipating the attendance of a large number of concerned citizens:

2nd Amendment sanctuary on agenda

By Alexa Massey
December 7, 2019

The location of the Dec. 10 Cumberland County Board of Supervisors meeting has been moved to the Cumberland Elementary School located at 60 School Road. According to County Administrator Don Unmussig, the location change is due to the anticipated increase in citizen participation at the meeting due to a resolution on the agenda declaring Cumberland County as a Second Amendment sanctuary. The board meeting will still occur at 7 p.m. as planned.

A Second Amendment sanctuary resolution, if adopted by a county, means that the county will not expend resources to enforce certain gun control measures perceived as violative of the Second Amendment.

The decision to vote on the resolution comes after many Virginia counties have passed similar resolutions from concern that a new Democratic majority in the General Assembly could put the Second Amendment rights of gun supporters in jeopardy.

Following the Nov. 5 state election, Gov. Ralph Northam discussed plans to pass stricter gun laws in the commonwealth including universal background checks.

“I will introduce those again in January, and I’m convinced, with the majority now in the House and the Senate, they will become law, and because of that Virginia will be safer,” said Northam.

Self Defence: Where Do You Stand?

The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published at LibertyGB in 2013.

Self Defence: Where Do You Stand?

by Michael Copeland

This is no video game. You are in a café in the USA. Other customers are present. Suddenly two men enter with guns. They make clear their intent to rob everyone. It is a nightmare: an armed robbery for real, and you are in it. This is no video game.

Your heart sinks as you quickly think what cash and valuables you have with you, and the first victim begins to produce his ready wealth. Suddenly a shot rings out, then another. One of the customers, a retired ex-serviceman, has a pistol: coolly and calmly he has dropped down on one knee and is shooting at the robbers. Shocked, wounded, and in total disarray, they flee empty-handed, crashing through the door and slipping to the ground in their haste. The shooter sends further shots after them. This is no video game. It is all over quite quickly. Shaken, you try to pull yourself together and assure yourself that you are unharmed.

“Ooh, it was just like a Hollywood movie!” is frequently the first reaction of an eyewitness. We are all so used to seeing things on screen that for many people this is the standard by which experiences are measured. Films, though, are make-believe, and we are comfortable enjoying their fictional world. Videos and broadcasts can be switched off: we are still in command. When an armed robbery happens before your eyes and you are one of its intended victims you cannot switch off: it is not a fiction, and you are not in control. You have to rely on your own inner resources.

This incident was, indeed, no video game: it happened in an Internet cafe in America, and was captured on CCTV. Though the open carrying of a gun is only permitted in certain states, American law provides for “Concealed Carry Permits” (CCPs). The law entirely backs up that particular citizen’s self-defence: he committed no crime. A serious robbery was defeated. The robbers in that incident were later traced and apprehended.

Here is a proven observation: the individual’s self-defence is also the defence of the law-abiding community. Zones where Concealed Carry Permits are in use have a lower crime rate: criminals know they might well encounter armed defence. As Ann Coulter explains, this is borne out by “all the actual evidence, mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested”.

Here is a second observation: criminals, by definition, do not observe gun control laws or restrictions. However careful and strict the laws may be, criminals will obtain firearms. An inescapable consequence of gun control laws, therefore, is to render the law-abiding population defenceless.

Continue reading

Banning the Cannonballs

I frequently read prescriptive assertions that begin with the words “We should” or “We need to”. Since I generally hang out among fellow Deplorables, such sentences usually conclude with an action based on a right-wing policy position — “close the borders”, “deport all the Muslims”, “ban mosques”, “hang the globalists”, etc., etc.

I always ponder what the word “we” might refer to in such statements. Does it mean “Myself, my brother, my uncle, and a few of my friends”? “The congregation of my church”? “The United States Congress”? “The UN”? “The Provisional Tribunal of Justice established after the revolution finally takes place”?

I’ve written in the past about this mysterious “we” that needs or ought to do certain things that never actually get done. “We” need to do these things, but somehow “we” never do. Why is that?

The Progressive “we” is another matter. If you’re on the Left, one of the most important things “we” need to do is to institute arms control of one form or another. Whether it’s nuclear weapons, standing armies, or guns in the hands of private citizens, “we” need to get rid of them, to ensure that peace will reign. Just imagine… it’s easy if you try.

The most cherished anthem of arms control in the Progressive Liturgy is Bob Dylan’s song “Blowin’ in the Wind”, which contains these lines:

Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?

You can tell it’s a hip song, because he drops the “g” from all his participles and reduces “and” to “’n’”.

I was in junior high school when I first heard it. Not Bob Dylan’s version, mind you — it would be several years before I heard the Bard of Greenwich Village sing one of his own songs — but the smash hit by Peter, Paul and Mary. Even back then, when I was a pencil-necked teenage geek, I understood that the sentiment in the song didn’t make any sense.

It was irrational, and ultimately meaningless. Nowadays I would call it “virtue-signalling”, but in 1963 it was just hip and cool and high-minded.

Let’s think about banning cannon balls. How would “we” do it?

“We” would have to include national governments in the process, so major military powers would be called on to negotiate a treaty. If one posits the existence of the United Nations, then it would have to be involved. After lengthy multilateral discussions, the Cannon Control Treaty would finally be signed by all parties and come into force. From then on, cannon balls would be forever banned.

Unfortunately, some years later the Central Asian nation of Ollistan secretly violates the terms of the treaty: its armament factories begin building caissons and casting barrels and balls to make cannons. When the intelligence services of major cannon-free nations learn about the violation, they’re in a quandary. How can they stop Ollistan’s cannons, when they have no cannons themselves? The only thing that could bring the violator to heel would be a bigger cannon.

This is where the UN comes in. If it doesn’t already exist, the cannon-free nations will have to sign a new treaty bringing it into existence. It will be granted the privilege of maintaining a large enough force of cannons so that any treaty-violators will be subdued before a single cannon ball can fly (other than a UN cannon ball, of course). A brand new state-of-the-art Supersized Nuclear Cannon is the preferred weapon in the UN’s new arsenal. It can stop any uppity cannon-making country in its tracks.

Take that, Ollistan! Problem solved.

The UN now has a vast stockpile of cannons that must be kept ready in case another violator appears. What to do with them in the meantime? It seems a shame to waste all that cannon-power.

Well, the nation of Bucolia has just elected a populist president who refuses to implement the UN’s mandated wetlands policy. Fortunately, his deplorable country has no cannons, so it’s a simple matter to reduce its capital city to a smoking crater. Which then becomes a wetland after the next monsoon.

Meanwhile, the nation of Orwellia has declined to admit its quota of UN-sponsored refugees. Just roll out Big Bertha, and all that shiny new border fencing is reduced to a mass of shattered concrete and twisted steel, allowing the puir wee migrant bairns unimpeded entry into the country.

Yes, those special UN cannons really come in handy for maintaining order and implementing public policy in a cannon-free world.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

When I started this essay I didn’t intend to write a fable, but then I kind of wandered off track. So now I’ll return to it.

My point is that any prescriptive policy statement carries an implicit threat of coercive force to ensure its implementation. If “we” decide to prohibit, require, ban, mandate, or proscribe, the implication is that “we” will have the firepower to enforce compliance. If citizens are disinclined to do what’s required of them, or want to enjoy what is prohibited, then a massive state apparatus of coercion may become necessary, up to and including uniformed police, secret police, national police, security police, an army, a navy, an air force, electronic surveillance, drones, and satellite tracking systems. Oh, and also lots of cannons.

The above description applies to any mandates or prohibitions, regardless of ideology. Whether “we” demand conservative or progressive behavior by citizens, the enforcement of “our” demands implies a swollen, intrusive state. No matter what “we” want to impose on others, the less people want to do it, the more jackbooted thugs will be required to make them.

I’ll give you an example from the deplorable end of the spectrum. Suppose “we” decided to vet potential immigrants for their level of Islamic ideology, to determine whether they were dangerous to national security. Can you imagine the size of the federal agency that would have to be created to do the job? A veritable behemoth of bureaucracy, complete with civil service regulations, mandated procedures, record-keeping requirements, diversity officers, ombudsmen, and whistle-blower protections. It would grow bigger every year, and even so, 98.6% of all Muslim applicants would be admitted, because… Human Rights.

And I almost forgot: just as with all other federal agencies, a large proportion of its employees would carry firearms on the job.

On the other side of the political fence, if “we” ban assault weapons, “our” agents have to possess even more powerful weapons to take them away from people.

Or suppose a state government were to implement a law prohibiting any restrictions on the possession of firearms (fat chance!). Then suppose a locality within that state passes a law restricting the use of certain weapons. How would the state enforce its regulation, except through the use of superior firepower?

It seems an impossible idyll now, but the state used to be smaller and less powerful, at least here in the USA. Is there any way to reclaim that earlier environment?

Obviously, a government mandate is not the preferred method, or “we” would have to roll out the cannons to make sure it happens.

What conditions would be necessary for general liberty to re-established among a free people?

That’s a big topic. With luck, I’ll be able to return to it in a later essay.

Forget the Oscars. Forget the Super Bowl. School Shootings are the Trending Public Spectacle.

In the blurb for last Friday’s news feed, I composed a flip introduction to the reports about the murderous school shooting in Texas committed by a kid named Dimitrios Pagourtzis, which had happened earlier that day: “Today’s school shooting was held in Santa Fe, Texas.”

I’d used the same formula for introducing school shootings once or twice in the past. This time, however, a reader took exception to my ghoulish sarcasm, and emailed me with his reproach:

I’ve been a long time reader of your site, and I agree with the vast majority of your viewpoint. While I KNOW that no disrespect was intended, the comment hurts.

I wrote him back with this reply:

Yes, well, it’s a sardonic, sarcastic way of presenting it (which I’ve been using for a while), and it’s meant to hurt. It’s intended to remind the reader what a media circus school shootings have become. The lavish media attention and feting of the victims’ families helps GUARANTEE that there will be more — and worse — shootings in the future.

THAT’S what my sarcasm is about.

The media frenzy that accompanies school shootings these days is driven by a couple of cultural imperatives.

The first is the hoary old newspaper adage: “If it bleeds, it leads.” That was true when Caveman Og chiseled the first edition of the Neanderthal Times. It was true when everyone read at least two newspapers every day, one in the morning and one in the evening. And it’s true now, when we all have access to fourteen gazillion cable channels. The story with the most slaughter and gore is the one that grabs the most viewers.

And this is especially the case when children are the ones who are bleeding. Och, the puir wee bairns! Whether it’s the victims of terrorist violence in Chechnya, or dead baby porn on a beach in Anatolia, or high school students shot up in art class — stories about children as victims of violence are fascinating to the general public.

The second reason that school shootings cause such moist eyes in the media is their major subtext: gun control. Democrat politicians wait a decorous period of time — in Joe Biden’s case, at least two or three hours — and then their litany begins: Haven’t there been enough school shootings? It’s time to get serious about gun control!

This imperative has become even more urgent since the election of Donald Trump. A large chunk of the president’s support comes from Second Amendment enthusiasts. Even the most skeptical libertarian gun owner regards the president more favorably than he does any other major political leader. These are the people that put Mr. Trump over the top in his contest with Hillary. They are the primary wellspring of intractable American orneriness. And it is essential to the Deep State that they be quelled and subdued.

Which means they must be disarmed.

Continue reading

The French are furious at Donald Trump’s remarks about the Bataclan. But what did the president actually say?

Last Friday President Donald Trump gave a speech at a National Rifle Association (NRA) event in Texas. Among other things, Mr. Trump described how differently things would have gone at the Bataclan restaurant — where Islamic terrorists massacred hundreds of people back in 2015 — if even one person at the event had been packing heat.

The French political elites — including all the talking heads on TV — were united in their sanctimonious outrage at the effrontery of the American president for saying such things. They demanded a public apology.

We hear from our French contacts that although French TV was filled with the fury of the bien-pensants, what Mr. Trump actually said last Friday was scrupulously omitted — the viewer just saw stills or silent footage of the president at the NRA.

So Vlad had a bright idea: subtitle the original footage of President Trump in French, as a public service. Then the French people can actually read and see what all the outrage is about.

Many thanks to Ava Lon (French to English) and Nathalie (English to French) for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Here’s an objective, unbiased (ahem) account of the brouhaha from CNN:

Trump angers France and Britain with his NRA speech

(CNN) US President Donald Trump took aim at two of America’s closest allies in a speech at the NRA convention, saying strict gun laws failed to prevent the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and highlighting a purported increase in knife violence in London.

The comments provoked anger in both France and Britain.

France was especially incensed after Trump, while speaking at the gun rights convention in Dallas on Friday, pointed his hand as if it were a gun while describing how each of the victims in Paris was fatally shot.

“They took their time and gunned them down one by one — boom, come over here, boom, come over here, boom,” he said.

The French foreign ministry issued a statement Saturday after Trump’s comments.

“France expresses its firm disapproval of President Trump’s remarks … and calls for the respect of the memory of the victims,” it said.

Francois Hollande, who was the French President during the 2015 attacks, tweeted Saturday:

“Donald Trump’s shameful remarks and obscene histrionics say a lot about what he thinks of France and its values. The friendship between our two peoples will not be tainted by disrespect and excessiveness. All my thoughts go to the victims of November 13.”

Trump went on to say things might have been different had Parisians in the cafes under attack had been armed.

“If one employee or just one patron had a gun, or if one person in this room had been there with a gun, aimed at the opposite direction, the terrorists would have fled or been shot. And it would have been a whole different story,” Trump said.

Video transcript:

(Three separate clips were combined in this video. The transcripts are listed separately with the original times. Mr. Trump’s words are included in both the French translation and the original English.)

Continue reading

Matt Bracken: Is the NFL ready for a stadium attack on a Las Vegas scale?

This essay was published earlier today at Western Rifle Shooters Association.

Is the NFL ready for a stadium attack on a Las Vegas scale?

by Matthew Bracken

My first novel, Enemies Foreign and Domestic, published in 2003, begins with a sniper shooting into a packed football stadium. Ninety bullets are fired from long range into an upper deck, precipitating a stadium-wide panic stampede that results in over a thousand deaths. In the book, a combat veteran holding a semi-automatic rifle is quickly located by a SWAT counter-sniper in a helicopter, after a citizen’s tip is phoned to the police. However, the veteran is just a patsy, and the true perpetrators of the massacre are a pair of mid-level federal law enforcement agents who are seeking to increase their departmental budgets and overall bureaucratic power. The liberal mainstream media accept the false narrative without close examination. Right-leaning military veteran “gun nuts” are universally tarred as potential mass murderers. Within a week, semi-automatic so-called “assault rifles” are banned. The first chapter can be read here.

My goal with the plot of Enemies Foreign and Domestic was to encourage news consumers not to blindly accept convenient official explanations after traumatic national events. Since the release of this novel, we have, in fact, seen federal agents and bureaucrats at a much higher level than my two fictional villains conspire to commit mass murder with the intention of spinning a false news narrative. We know this intentional mass murder plot as “Operation Fast and Furious”, whereby thousands of semi-automatic rifles from Southwestern gun dealers were deliberately sold to criminals with the expectation that they would be transported to violent cartels in Mexico. This resulted in mass carnage which would then be blamed on the Second Amendment and lax American gun laws. Honest gun dealers were coerced by the ATF into making otherwise illegal straw purchases to criminals in bulk quantities. No attempt was made to track the guns once they left ATF observation at the point of sale. The Mexican government was never informed of the murderous gun-running plan. Operation Fast and Furious was not a legitimate law enforcement operation gone wrong. It was a covert murder plan from start to finish, conceived and carried out for political purposes.

Before the evil scheme was exposed after the shooting death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010, President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Secretary of State Clinton were regularly touting as fact the lie that 90% of the guns found at Mexican murder scenes had originated in the USA. Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress after stonewalling their attempts to investigate Operation Fast and Furious, when the half-hearted investigation was leading directly to his office. None of the principals behind this murderous plan have ever been held accountable. I revisit Fast and Furious in case any readers of this article learn the premise of my first novel and declare that federal law enforcement officials would never be involved in a mass murder scheme concocted for political ends.

That Rubicon was already crossed with Operation Fast and Furious.

Since then, we have witnessed other scandals which involved selling the American public a false narrative. One example is the lie that the deadly attacks on our nearly undefended diplomatic missions in Benghazi were the result of an angry local response to an obscure video about the life of Mohammed. My point in recounting this history is to encourage Americans to always search beyond the “official narrative,” which, as we have seen, can sometimes be manufactured from whole cloth for public consumption. If the false narrative coincides with the liberal mainstream media’s underlying biases and preconceptions, you can be certain that very little honest journalism will be done to expose the lies and reveal the truth to the public.

This brings me to Las Vegas, with its ever-changing timelines and other dark mysteries, such as the motive of Stephen Paddock, the presumed shooter. Columnist Mark Steyn proposes a theory of the case that, in the absence of any declared motive or connections to international terrorism, “the medium is the message.” In Las Vegas, then, the message would be that the ready availability of semi-automatic firearms constitutes a menace to American society, and the Second Amendment must be curtailed to prevent future massacres. Limiting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms has been a long-standing goal of the Left. So-called progressives well understand that their dream of imposing a “socialist utopia” cannot be achieved while Americans possess sufficiently effective weapons to mount a furious armed resistance. If Paddock had left a note declaring this end to be his true motive, he would have discredited his own purpose.

Of course, Paddock might have simply been a deranged psychopath, bent, for his own twisted reasons, upon topping the record books as America’s most successful mass shooter. We’ll never know because he’s conveniently dead and, apparently, he left no departing message. The lack of a declared motive, the ever-shifting timeline, and the fact that it took more than an hour after the shooting had ceased for the police to enter Paddock’s suite means that mystery may cloud the Las Vegas Massacre for years or decades to come.

One outcome is certain: millions of Americans are unlikely to accept any “official narrative” released after the investigation has concluded, and with good reason. The FBI and other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies have squandered their reputations for honesty and integrity in recent years, and we can no longer assume that politics and corruption have not trumped even-handed truth telling.

Continue reading

Why European Preservationists Should Join the Military Reserves

Most European countries make it difficult (if not impossible) for ordinary citizens to acquire firearms legally. Unlike their American counterparts, European patriots are generally unable to gather and train together as part of an armed militia.

In a recent post at the blog European Civil War, Michael Gladius makes an argument for European patriots to join the reserves or National Guards of their respective countries in order to prepare for the next phase of the Counterjihad.

Below are excerpts from his excellent article:

Why Preservationists Should Join the Military Reserves

by Michael Gladius

Not everybody can be an activist, especially on the right. The left-wing activists have more sponsors and wealthier sponsors than the right has, and they have been doing this for far longer. Right-wingers need to ask permission from the state to do anything, whereas left-wingers can act with impunity, protected by the police power of the government. Right-wingers need months to plan a rally, whereas leftist thrall-masters can summon a riot within hours. When it comes to virtually all conventional methods of power, the left holds a near-monopoly.

So what can the right do? There are already several successful activist groups, particularly Generation Identitaire and its various iterations, but for various reasons many patriots cannot get involved with these activist groups on a regular basis.

The answer lies in the army reserves. If European patriots joined the reserves en masse, the balance of power would shift dramatically in our favor.

What are the reserves?

War is expensive, and standing armies are a massive drain on a nation’s resources. For peaceful nations, small nations, or poor nations these costs are prohibitive. Even bigger and wealthier countries would prefer to spend as little as possible on their militaries, unless they are at war. The reserves are a way to balance out the need for a large body of trained soldiers with the desire for a small, inexpensive army. When a man joins the reserves, he goes through basic training, same as a full-time soldier. When he finishes training, he returns to civilian life and is required to drill once a month. In time of war, he may be re-activated, and called up for duty. When this happens, he normally undergoes a period of a few months to refresh his skills before being deployed.

Switzerland is famous for mandating military training for its entire population (which I personally think should be copied across the West). Being a small, peaceful country, it has maintained a policy of iron neutrality for 500 years through this system. Other examples throughout history include the Spartans, Romans, Germans, Israelis, and Boers. The Israelis in 1948 and the Boers in 1899 are the most suitable for our scenario today. This will be the subject of a future article.

Advantages of joining the reserves

In a military, there are combat units, auxiliary units, and a chain of command to ensure these are coordinated and organized. Basic training varies from country to country, but is generally no shorter than three months. Compare this to gun clubs and tactical schools in the United States and Europe, which normally only offer classes on weekends (many of them will, however, offer courses for law enforcement personnel on weekdays… hint hint). These basic skills are highly perishable, and require time and qualified teachers in order to be effectively ingrained.

The first advantage of joining the reserves is that patriots do not have to quit their jobs to join. Once training is complete, reservists will return home, and pick up where they left off. It would be impractical for every European patriot to join the army full-time, but this is not the case with the reserves.

The second advantage of joining the reserves is legitimacy. It may seem odd to join the armies of the nation-states conspiring to replace us and our way of life, but the left has no qualms about milking the state for money and wielding its conventional power. Neither should we. If the right breaks away from the nation state, then we are only another gang in a lawless landscape. If the nation-state collapses, the gangs will survive, but so long as the state remains, the left will ensure that it hunts us down first. By joining the reserves, we will show our loyalty to our nations (if not the politicians running them), and be able to claim legitimate use of force against lawless Islamo-leftists. If we are reservists, then the state cannot declare war on itself without consuming itself and rendering itself irrelevant.

Continue reading