State goals depend upon loyalty and obedience for their accomplishment. When one discovers a State goal to be interpreted, one discovers inevitably that there has been an interposition of self-willedness, of greed, of idleness, or of rugged individualism and self-centered initiative.The interruption of a State goal will be discovered as having been interrupted by a person whose disloyalty and disobedience is the direct result of his own mis-alignment with life.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

If loyalty is so important in the economic and social structure, it is necessary to examine it further as itself.

Loyalty means simply ‘alignment.’ It means, more fully, alignment with the goals of the Communist State. Disloyalty means entirely mis-alignment, and more broadly, mis-alignment with the goals of the Communist State. [gliechshaltung]

When we consider that the goals of the Communist State are to the best possible benefit of the masses, we can see that disloyalty, as a term, can embrace Democratic alignment.

Loyalty to persons not communistically indoctrinated would be quite plainly a mis-alignment.

The cure of disloyalty is entirely contained in the principles of alignment. All that is necessary to do, where disloyalty is encountered, is to align the purposes of the individual toward the goals of Communism, and it will be discovered that a great many circumstances hitherto distasteful in his existence will cease to exist.

A heart, or a kidney in rebellion against the remainder of the organism is being disloyal to the remainder of the organism. To cure the heart or kidney it is actually only necessary to bring its activities into alignment with the remainder of the body.

The changing of loyalty consists, in its primary step, of the eradication of existing loyalties. This can be done in one of two ways. First, by demonstrating that previously existing loyalties have brought about perilous physical circumstances, such as imprisonment, lack of recognition, duress, or privation, and second by eradicating the personality itself.

One of the primary instances in this is creating circumstances [making history] which apparently derive from the target of his loyalties, so as to rebuff the individual. [make em feel ashamed that they want for their family good things… as if that denies all good things]

As part of this there is the creation of a state of mind in the individual, by actually placing him under duress, and then furnishing him with false evidence to demonstrate that the target of his previous loyalties is, itself, the course of the duress.
[change marriage laws, give bad advice, etc.. that causes collapse, lack of fulfillment, malaise, etc… then make up stories about how women could never do X (despite you can list a dozen that did), and so on… rule of thumb? false… etc… men are the oppressors, they are slave masters of women, etc… see how it works? it took 60 years… but look what it wrought and how unstoppable it is… and all you had to do, was open the society, and close yours to the same ills (hows feminism doing in russia and china where they claim its an answer?.. how much did the socialist leaders in obamas office pay attention to women?)]

Another portion of this same method consists of defaming or degrading the individual whose loyalties are to be changed to the target of his loyalties [see sarah palin… even betty friedan when having second thoughts… each is attacked when they fall out of alignment with the goal!!!!!!!!!! now it makes sense… no?],

i.e., superiors or government, to such a degree that this target, at length, actually does hold the individual in disrepute, and so does rebuff him and serve to
convince him that his loyalties have been misplaced.

These are the milder methods, but have proven extremely effective.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

It is adequately demonstrated that loyalty is entirely lacking in that mythical commodity known as ‘spiritual quality.’ Loyalty is entirely a thing of dependence, economic or mental, and can be changed by the crudest implementations. Observation of workers in their factories or fields demonstrates that they easily grant loyalty to a foreman or a woman, and then as easily abandon it and substitute another individual, revulsing, at the same time, toward the person to whom loyalty was primarily granted. The queasy insecurity of the masses in Capitalistic nations finds this more common than in an enlightened State. In Capitalistic states, dependencies are so craven, wants and privations are so exaggerated, that loyalty is entirely without ethical foundation and exists only in the realm of dependency, duress, or demand.

ie. they will love their cancer over everything else.

so union members will fight for unequlity, pretending it makes us more equal, even if it collapses the whole thing and they get nothing.

women will support feminism, even by just being quiet, and letting it happen (and feigning that isnt supporting using dissimulation)… will keep supporting it no matter what its doing…

so craven is their loyalty to that which was given to replace the loyal thing they were taught betrayed them for millinea!!!!!!

their love of their husbands and children was transferred to the cause… those who are not part of it, are duly impgined for the cause by those who are aligned with the body politic.

too bad this stuff has been around since before the summer of love… but if i remember correctly,they marginalized anyone that warns anyone about it, or isnt a part of it.. like phyliss shaffly, palin etc..

they are not even real women
and look.. they are loyal to the oppressors!!

heck… if it wasnt for them you woudnt have to have babies… (yes, they ACTUALLY are promising that to young ladies!. and they are right, the dead and exterminated dont have babies)

there is so much more from so many places…
some good, some bad

but i guess making up reasons, solutions, ideas of whats happening… thats the way to go..

such amuses the gods…

ie… the ONLY difference was that the state had forgotten to make a rule to make it legal…

which is the point of arbitrary rule over rule of law
from the minute obama negated the rule of law, the following it was only a convenience…

now there is no rule of law…

or like Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria said:
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

[The average American commits three felonies a day]

you see.. we have passed the line of Red Terror, where you raise one too many bunnies, and are in the hole for 4 million… where a lemonade stand is a crime against the state for not having licensing…

as i said long ago… you just dont GET red terror

ie… what happens if the state decided to tighten up and go to a real level of zero tolerance? the result would be to be allowed to take anyone you want and do what you want to them… no?

if you can hold a father in jail for 6 years without due process… you can do what you want…

EACH item that breaks the constitution is only redundant as it technically only took one to make it fail

affirmative action for women? out goes equality before the law… and soviet inequality is the norm, and so the outcomes are whatever they want it to be so it matches PC… (politically correct is a soviet term feminists transplanted)

AT BEST, any argument as to the lack of legality is only one of momentum… like imagining the scraps of law we can pick off the floor can be still applied as if the law was whole..

the law as you knew it no longer exists
there is just custom now.. which keeps us pretending it does.. then we are suprised when it doesnt..

that is until we ‘get’ it…

that bad advice internally, inter-socially, etc
is a form of WAR…

AND

as to this question:
What interest “the system” has in not recognizing renunciations from expatriates more readily, I cannot say.

socialist cows are not free to produce for others…
only free individuals have a right to choose where and whom they want to serve… but once they said: X causes Y decline in productivity, they were telling you they own you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! most were just too stupid to tell… (and even worse, were SO stupid as to defend their stupidity against someone cluing them in!!)

i can only lose what i own..
so productivity can only be lost if the state owns you
and under socialism, the state owns all means of production…

in case the dip sticks dont get WHAT THAT MEANS…
it doesnt mean property, machines, etc…
it means PEOPLE…

machines dont produce wihtout people
property is not productive wiht out people
PEOPLE ARE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

so… now we are OWNED…
and the rest of the countries are respecting that ownership…

everyone thinks that this can be reversed..
it cant…
its a done deal… and so is whats coming..

when you love your cancer, you die…

how how do you love your cancer?

normalize the cancer… as Stalin pointed out

then the cherished will murder the body politic.

JUST so we can understand what is happening, like pieces on a chess board converging at once..

“A psycho-politician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of ‘mental healing.’ You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of ‘psychology.’ You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims. You must labor until we have dominion of the minds and bodies of every important person in your nation (America). You must work until suicide arising from mental imbalance is common and calls forth no general investigation or remark… You must dominate as respected men the fields of psychiatry and psychology. You must dominate the hospitals and universities… You can come and take your instructions as worshippers of Freud… Psycho-politics is a solemn charge. With it you can erase our enemies as insects. You (psychologists) can change their (leaders) loyalties by psychopolitics. Given a short time with a psycho-politician you can alter forever the loyalty of a soldier in our hands or a statesman or a leader in his own country, or you can destroy his mind. Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends… By psycho-politics create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace man has ever known. Thank you.”

supposedly said by Beria, repeated in Dianetics (1955) L Ron Hubbard… (no evidence of its authenticity has emerged since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and different editions of it are believed to contain text added by L. Ron Hubbard and neo-Nazi Kenneth Goff. The original authorship remains unclear.)

and while the source here is questionable (after all you cant set an appointment and read what they did say or not!!)

Basically, Man is an animal. He is an animal which has been given a civilized veneer. Man is a collective animal, grouped together for his own protection before the threat of the environment. Those who so group and control him must have in their possession specialized techniques to direct the vagaries and energies of the animal Man toward greater efficiency in the accomplishment of the goals of the State.

Man is already a colonial aggregation of cells, and to consider him an individual would be an error. Colonies of cells have gathered together as one organ or another of the body, and then these organs have, themselves, gathered together to form the whole. Thus we see that man, himself, is already a political organism, even if we do not consider a mass of men.

ah… so if you have a body politic
and you want it DEAD.. you can have war
and that war can kill so many CELLS, that the body dies and you take over…

but you can also make it sick…
you can loosen the morals..
you can give bad advice how to live
you can make them more egalitarian (Weak and proven mathematically. see: Egalitarian civilisations ‘are weaker’ than those with inequality – study in the news today)

or… to hear stalin say it:

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

Feminism destroyed ALL THREE…

and we are now collapsing from within

and now AFTER we have abandoned morals for feminism, and so on…

you wonder if its moral to kill X?

this is socialism… under socialism the shoa was moral. and not only moral, unavoidably necessary… and so was the deaths in russia, china, etc.. all are necessary for the body politic..

so is it legal to kill him?
yes.

As it was LEGAL to exterminate by torture and starve 100 million people for socialism, for the greater good

under this ideal… all he is is a cancer recognized by the body politic.

so what do you do with a cancer?
cut it out
what do you do with one you dont know is cancer?
love it till it kills you

Seems to me that you could issue a warrant, and then kill him when he refused to surrender himself to the judicial system for trial. In this manner he would place himself outside the law – in the manner of an old time bandit who made himself an outlaw by fleeing to the Oklahoma territory rather than yielding to the judicial system. Perhaps we (the professional legal class) nowadays feel that it is offensive to the dignity of our system to even recognize that some persons cannot in principle be compelled to appear in court.

But whether or not that is the case, we do also obviously have a problem in this country in persistently imputing citizenship to persons who have publicly renounced it.

What interest “the system” has in not recognizing renunciations from expatriates more readily, I cannot say.

The subject could of course be granted a certain amount of leeway, and informed that official and legal notice was taken that he had performed a public renunciation of his citizenship, and that he was invited to appear before an appropriate court to correct any misunderstandings.

Point 2: Evil people will do evil, whether have good, bad, stupid, or negligent intentions.

Point 3: Lawfare is a weapon designed and used by evil and anti-human factions in the world, in order to overthrow any humane government or society.

Point 4: Executions are increasingly becoming more necessary because of lawfare and how it shields people. People no longer trusting in the legal system to guarantee security, now have no more reason to keep people alive for a rigged trial, when killing them is much easier.

Point 5: An evil person using lawfare generates bad consequences for the progress of humanity, whereas an evil person using executions of people, will also generate bad consequences because they’re evil. They aren’t going to make a building just because. It’s always a step in the direction of causing the maximum harm and fatalities, spiritually, mentally, physically.

Point 6: If a good person used executions or mass killings, like HIroshima, and generated good consequences due to being correct in decision making, then that’s because they were good to start off with. Not because such actions made them good. If a good person uses lawfare, it will be to protect people from a totalitarian government and jury rigged kangaroo courts, like To Kill a Mocking Bird, where jurisprudence and legal rigor mole, irregardless of where it comes from, is used for the purpose of saving human souls and lives.

This isn’t so much a question of which path or method is right, or whether government should or should not have this power. A government full of wise nobles and confident judges will pursue justice with a moderately good chance. A government full of Leftists couldn’t improve people’s standard of living if they wanted to. That is the difference people should keep in mind.

I reiterate, does Awlaki get a break because he’s an US citizen that the Yemeni terrorist in the front seat does not get? If so, why?

I think this is a good rule. I thought it was a good rule during the Cambodian Incursions of the Viet Nam war, as well.

Obama’s already assumed the authority to wage war unilaterally, and has even gone beyond Bush with his “preventive detention” policy.

Next thing you know, Obama will exile Republicans who oppose his policies. Lincoln did it. Why not Obama?