WWFMD ?

by Hugh Akston *
(aka Hans Mentha)

Yesterday I had a lot of time to think. I stood for two hours on the street across from the NC Capital and watched the circus. This was not Barnum and Bailey. This was a street performance by SEIU, SEANC, Teamsters, etc. and their progressive, socialist and communist organizers.

Yes, there was a gathering on my side of the street also. The defining characteristic between the opposing crowds was clear. One side wants to achieve “economic and social justice” through redistribution of wealth and power. The other side wants to be left alone to live their lives and prosper in accordance with their industry and ability. It’s just that simple: force vs. self reliance.

Many smart conservatives with good intentions have worked hard to find ways to communicate with these Looters, the “useful idiots”, “tools” of the communists, who carry the socialist and progressive banners. Despite best efforts one can see little net effect on the dialog or events over the last two years. There is no common ground for compromise or negotiation with the naked evil that only covets what you have and believes it should become theirs.

So what did I think about as I gazed across the street into the faces? The faces filled with anger and hate, screaming about “workers rights”? First I thought about how to suppress my visions of their mouths salivating to consume the products of my mind and labor.

Then I thought about my Rights as a sovereign human. Rights understood by the men and
women who fought the War of Independence to live free from the tyranny of the British monarchy; Rights of man that exist prior to the establishment of any government.

After that, I reflected on the loss of Liberty endured to confront the lunacy across the street. To stand at this event today, I submitted to Statutes of NC and the Ordinances of Raleigh which stripped me of some of my Rights for the privilege of permitting me to exercise others. One should never have to surrender one Right to exercise another. It is unreasonable to relinquish my Right to defend my life where agitators cross into our crowd to provoke conflict.

Our State and City have passed laws that attempt to make our human rights mutually exclusive. If I want to peacefully assemble to picket I must not be armed. If I am armed, I must distance myself from locations where free speech is exercised. This is philosophically and morally wrong.

We have been conditioned to choose between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive. Today I resolved this problem – I no longer find certain restrictions
acceptable. For each artificial constraint that is placed upon me, I will ask a simple question:

WWFMD ?

( What Would Free Men Do ? )

A free man would apply a test of ‘reasonability’ to the constraints forced upon his choices.
From today forward, I will examine my motives and actions to ensure they are in compliance with the underlying principles of civil behavior and common law.

IF I am satisfied that I do not intend to

  • initiate force (breach the peace)
  • injure another (physical, mental or economic damage)
  • encroach (on persons or their property)

THEN I will

  • proceed with my business
  • conduct myself with dignity
  • be swift to exercise retaliatory force
  • be responsible for consequences of my actions,

Despite any restrictions or constraints that other men attempt to impose on me.

This is a new line in the sand, a statement to guide my peaceful actions. At the same time this is a warning to all who seek to violate my Rights. Repeat after me:

We, the intended victims of the collectivists, withdraw our sanction.
We will not be willing victims any longer
We will not submit to unreasonable constraints.
We will not disarm.

If you are one of the Looters, and you ask what this really means in practice, let me refer you to statements by others who have addressed this dilemma:

“All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”

 
If you try to take our liberty, property, (…insert any unalienable right), we will kill you.”

 

WWFMD ?

You might find it is hard to get a clear answer to this question, as Free Men (and Women) have not walked on this soil for over 140 years.

You will have to answer this for yourself, as did I. Just apply the test of ‘reasonability’.

Starting today, we live once again in Liberty as Free Men.

We need no permission.

It’s just that simple.


* In Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged there is a character named Hugh Akston. Dr. Akston is a philosopher known as “the last of the advocates of reason” – although he refers to himself as “the first of their return”.

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to WWFMD ?

  1. George Machen says:

    Good work!

  2. TMedlin says:

    most excellent!

  3. Hugh, and ONLY Hugh, can stop Communist LIARS.

    Great Message and very well written.

    Respectfully submitted by SD2010.

  4. Larry Bailey says:

    Hans, this is truly outstanding. You capture the essence of counter-revolution without falling prey to its most insidious characteristics.

    Well done, thou lover of liberty and champion of consequence!

  5. Bubba says:

    Well done, Hans.
    Fewer words have rarely been used to say so much.

  6. Knitebane says:

    Hans,

    You seem to have inadvertently left off credit for the quotes…

    “All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”

    That’s from Billy Beck.
    http://http://www.two--four.net

    “If you try to take our liberty, property, (…insert any unalienable right), we will kill you.”

    That’s from Mike Vanderboegh
    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

    Otherwise, spot on!

    • Hans says:

      Hi Knitebane -- You are correct in your attribution.

      I omitted the references to focus on the message, not the messenger.

      Best Regards,
      Hans

      • Peter Alexander says:

        Well said and I trust well meant Hans. God bless you, your family and our restored Constitutional Repubic.

        It is time to say what we mean and mean what we say and defend ourselves, our property and all of our liberties.

        Evil will not compromise, nor will it concede, so we must destroy evil.

        First, my brothers and sisters, we must reconcile ourselves with God and seek His forgiveness for our transgressions and go and sin no more.

        Pray for God’s blessings on the counter-revolution to restore our God-given liberties. Pray for Peace…Prepare for War.

        Join like minded, committed, trustworthy sons and daughters of liberty and train in twos and threes so as small groups of Partiots we can move toward the gunfire and killevrything evil.

        We are the citizens called by God to defend our Rightful Liberties. Be Not Afraid. Trust that God is guiding our purpose, plans and actions. Peace, Peter ~

  7. Pingback: Moonlight Swim-28 Feb 11 | adeliemanchot

  8. Mark Matis says:

    When is it time for the foul stench passing themselves off as “Law Enforcement” to rot in hell for dishonoring their oath of office to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…”? Only at THAT time, and NOT BEFORE THEN shall the US again be a Constitutional Republic. Until then, we are merely under the rule of Thugs with Guns. Who make the Mafia enforcers look good by comparison.

    • Hans says:

      Seems to me that the LEO’s of the Legislature, Capital, and Raleigh PD are the product of years of indoctrination. I don’t expect them to change behavior overnight, certainly not as long as they are under the thumb of “Chicken Lady”.

      For the LEO’s to honor their oath, a substantial number of them would have to study the Declaration of Independence and internalize the sentiment: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      Only then could they band together “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

      I’m waiting.

      Hans

  9. Jeffrey Sykes says:

    Hans: When I met you in Raleigh in 2009 at Hagan’s office you came across as very intelligent and thoughtful. I was a bit keyed up and wanted to mess with the MoveOn protesters but you guys were all about ignoring them and taking the high road.

    What has happened in the year and a half that would cause you to openly pine for civil war and basically state that you intend to take weapons where ever you want even if the police say it is not cool?

    That seems to me a big jump in logic and political posture. What has caused this shift in tone and rhetoric?

    • Hans says:

      Hello Jeffrey

      I don’t “openly pine for civil war”. I lament the fact that it is delivered to my door through the actions of those who come to loot my wealth and infringe my Rights.

      A man would have to live in a sensory deprivation tank to be unaware of events over the last two years that prompted me to study the history of 1750 to 1870. I invested a lot of time and energy to understand the character of men who established this nation. I worked hard to understand the Nullification crisis of 1828 to 1832 which is once again relevant with regard to contemporary issues.

      I learned to respect the men and women of the pre-progressive era who would not submit to any form of encroachment on their persons or property.

      What seems like a big jump in logic and posture has been a slow transformation. Over these 18 months, while I worked to promote change “within the system”, I gradually began to understand words in the Declaration of Independence:

      “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

      Once such understanding is acquired, it is very difficult to return to a life of sensory deprivation.

      Best Regards
      Hans

  10. John Bernard Books says:

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

  11. Bill Randell says:

    “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

    It could not and cannot be said in more poignant and elegant language that what the founders used; and I cannot but help to ascertain by the same examination of the record referred to by Hans, that those words do now as well most certainly apply.

    Can it be referred to as a “pine for civil war?” It could not! A simple statement of truth and a desire to stand for said truth is the very essence of Liberty and its surrounding tenets.

    Can a man defending the sanctity of his home from those who would break in and rob him of his possessions or family, be referred to as a murderer or war monger? And how does it make a difference if it is a neighbor or one who calls himself an “agent” of the “government”? In what realm of reality does it make a difference who is trying to steal from you or kill you without reason. Is a man less dead if killed by an “agent” rather than a neighbor? Is a “agent” less guilty of trespass than a neighbor? When does the government, i.e. an agent, become a criminal? Is defending against a criminal “civil war”?

    I think it behooves us all to take a very close look at where we are in this present day and compare it to what it is supposed to be under the Law we say is the legitimate source enumerated to govern the behavior of the government. Are there are any discrepancies? Have they been addressed? What was the result? What is our legitimate and lawful response if there is no response? I think the document containing the quote at the beginning of this comment offers a solution.

    I say here! here! to the post from Hans.

  12. Cliff Muncy says:

    Hans, this is simply terrific. I echo the compliments of some of the others here. You state here what I wish so many more understood. So many people have it backwards today, believing that we ask for, rather than assert. Such a fantastic summation which I will most definitely be passing around. Thank you.

  13. Jeffrey Sykes says:

    Thanks for the reply, Hans. I was very impressed with you when I met you and so I want to understand because, as I said, I appreciated your rational approach to the issues we were protesting that day.

    I’ll be following your site and keeping up to date.

    Take care.

    Jeff

    • Hans says:

      This site was established and is run by David (see the About page).

      I am an “occasional” author (previous posts on NCFreedom.us).

  14. admin says:

    I may run the site but it is open to all patriots who have a talent for writing.

  15. Pingback: Why Do You Have a Right to Your Money? | NCRenegade

  16. LT says:

    Hans is spot on – in all things social, there is a fulcrum, and it moves along the axis of individualism/collectivism. The further the fulcrum moves in favor of collectivism, the more leverage is available to the collective to suppress the expressions of individuals. We do not “pine for civil war” – we pray and act in accordance with our belief that the greatest good is vested in the individual.

    Only the individual can appreciate and pursue liberty; only the individual can experience justice or suffer injustice; only the individual possesses the power to choose and act in the real-time/real-world environment of life, towards success or failure.

    Where life itself is an ongoing concern of the individual who has developed and continues to practice said choice successfully, there is liberty. Where life is an ongoing battle of the individual to mitigate the efforts of others to subvert and control the individual, there is tyranny.

    Liberty admits only free men, and these only with their active consent – a free man is also free to enter bondage, if that is his choice; but he may recant, and reclaim his liberty, should he so desire, and be committed to such a course thereafter. A free man is born into dignity, and should he live a dignified life, his dignity is also his reward, even in death…

    Collectivism does not admit any; rather, it demands that all be enrolled regardless of their will, and has as a core value that there should be no free choice anywhere – even outside the collective; no man, once enrolled by the collective, may recant his entry thereto, for the collective releases those who dissent only by death. Even death is denied it’s dignity by the collective…

    This is not hypothesis – this is truth, plaid out upon the tapestry of the lives of our forefathers, and th history of our entire world, time after time.

    Those who love dignity must defend liberty, and thus war upon collectivism. This is not “pining for civil war” – we must serve and defend liberty, as it serves and preserves us and our descendants –

    First, by teaching the forms and functions which, by their essence, create the most liberty for the greatest portion of our population. What good things every man desires for himself, a free man also desires for others. This is the ONLY DEFINITION of “the common good” our forefathers held to in the documents which are our nation’s foundation.

    Second, by adopting forms and means for the assurance and propagation of liberty. laws, customs, and commerce are only good which, by their structure and prosecution, give men the power to generate financial gain _and_ good will towards each other in equal parts. A free man, in a free market, who violates these precepts, is a pariah, and therefore a failure; but a free man, in a free market, who upholds these precepts, shall be known and respected by all, and his wealth shall grow not only by his industry and ingenuity, but also because other free men will _desire_ to do business with him because of his good will and respectability. Thus, freedom possesses the incredible potential for growth limited only by the good will of men.

    Third, through reverence, not of men, and even less towards any given man; but of things greater than man, liberty calls forth the best from every man. Liberty reveres and promotes the conceptual “greater good” only through active pursuit at the individual level – God, Liberty, and good will are the pursuits of free men as individuals, and by those pursuits all benefit – no organization, agency, or court is required in a society of free men to compel them to be generous or dignified – their love of liberty extends beyond their person and family, to encompass all men, and thus to promote the benefit of all men.

    As a corollary – Liberty, by its very nature, abhors celebrity and other grandiose but empty things. Liberty is humble, because it knows both it’s fragile and valuable nature, and thus it’s weakness is it’s greatest strength. Through liberty, every man is encouraged, in all humility, to achieve all the potential with which he is endowed, and through the fellowship of others who believe and strive as he does, he is affirmed to this end in his daily affairs. Thus, liberty is the only sustainable state of man.
    More, later…

    Warmest regards to all who love liberty!

    LT

Leave a Reply