How to Win the Battle with Antifa

A battle with a group like Antifa needs to be waged on all fronts. Physical, Philosophical, Political, and Societal.

Antifa is a broad and confusing term that covers many different people. In order to win a battle you must know your enemy. I will attempt to define what Antifa means and some of the various types of Antifa.

Types of Antifa

Some people take the meaning of the word Antifa literally and believe it simply means you oppose fascism. These people either are not paying attention or are willfully blinding themselves to the truth.

These are the literalist Antifa. They think Antifa means you oppose fascism and that the people in black bloc are protectors of the community and oppressed.

The black bloc Antifa can be broken down into two camps. The shield maidens and the soy sword members.

The shield members are typically woman and provide cover for the sword members by wearing the black bloc uniform and standing between the sword members and any counter protesters. The sword members are the ones who will step out from the crowd from behind the shield members and hit you on the head with a bike lock, smash windows, set fire to cop cars, and generally cause destruction.

The shield members generally outnumber the sword members so they can claim they are largely peaceful to the media and the media will parrot this talking point. They also provide sympathy for the Antifa cause because if they get hurt it makes the other side look bad for beating up women. Something Antifa will exploit every chance they get for propaganda and recruiting purposes.

They also provide a protective group for the sword members to blend into after they commit their heinous acts. If these tactics seem familiar, that is because they are the same tactics used by ISIS and other terrorist organizations. The terrorists will set up base inside a school or nearby so they can produce propaganda that the evil imperialists are killing children.

Antifa also utilizes people intended to bait the opposition. The goal of this is to get the other side to throw the first punch and make them seem like the aggressors. They will do and say anything short of attacking you, if they think it will make you angry. Do not take the bait, it might feel good at the time and you might win the battle but it is a loss for the war.

Archers are the Antifa members who throw objects into the opposing crowd. They are protected in the group from identification and only seek to make the opposition angry. They will throw bricks, bottle of urine, fireworks, and rocks. This tactic is meant to anger the opposition much the same way the bait does and if they hurt someone in the process all the better.

Antifa does have a propaganda arm. Websites such as Rose City Antifa and It’s Going Down spread this propaganda across social media and the web and even reach into the mainstream media.

Antifa also has ally groups, which include labor unions, sections of the Democratic Party, and the Progressive movement. They also have sympathetic allies in the mainstream media and in local government.

Physically

When I say physically I do not mean violence, but rather actually showing up or being physically present. Show up to Free Speech rallies, do not be afraid to share your opinion, and never be ashamed to display the American Flag.

We also need to show up, in numbers, to town halls and other events where politicians are talking with the public. Note: Do not seek out politicians on their private time or if you see them in the grocery store, it might be tempting to exercise turnabout as fair play but it does no good in the long run.

At these town halls we need to ask hard questions, repeatedly, and demand direct answers. Not in a screaming and yelling sort of way that the Democrats demand everything but in an adult calm but tough sort of way.

Ask questions like, what is your opinion on Antifa? How do you plan to keep the community safe from their violence? Or ask about a specific events, such as the Patriot Prayer march on June 30^th that saw Antifa throwing mortars into a crowd of people. You can also ask them about what they think about Free Speech, if they support borders, and what is their opinion on groups like Patriot Prayer.

The questions and answers need to be recorded and shared in a full unedited format across multiple platforms. By asking these questions repeatedly it will force the politicians to address the problem directly. If one person asks they usually can dodge the question but if 4 or 5 people ask they will be run out of room to maneuver and be forced to answer the question plainly.

By getting them to answer these questions it will force the politicians to either express support for Antifa, which will make them look bad to the general public, or if they denounce Antifa it makes Antifa look bad and will cause them to turn on that politician. Either way we win.

Philosophical

This is one of the more difficult aspects because it is a war of ideas and narratives. The best thing we can do is examine Antifa ideology. Antifa for the most part runs on Socialist/Communist and Anarchist ideologies.

We need to examine these ideologies and their evolutions and address their questions and concerns. A good place to start is the Communist Manifesto and the Antifa Handbook. Check out videos and discussions by members of the Intellectual Dark Web, which includes people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Dave Rubin.

These are highly intelligent people that are able to help give words to your thoughts. They are able to express ideas clearly and in understandable terms. Support them and share the ideas you agree with and talk about those that you do not.

If you get a chance you should also read what was written by the founding fathers and the thinkers they were reading. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers are great, works of Thomas Paine such as Common Sense, and The Rights of Man, and of course the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

If you do not have the time to read these works you can always search for audio versions and listen to them while doing dishes, walking the dog, or during your workout.

Political

Antifa appears to be the militant wing of the Democratic Party. I say, appears to be, because I have no direct proof that they are getting their orders from that party. There are also Democrats who oppose Antifa, though most are probably too afraid to say so.

For those who are afraid we need to stand up and show them they have nothing to fear. If they speak up we need to encourage them. If they support Antifa we need to record it and share that video across the internet.

The goal here is to try and tie the Democratic Party together with Antifa. This will force individual Democrats to either come out against Antifa or accept that they endorse them. This will seem to matter little to Antifa but it will matter to the general public.

It will create a split between the Progressives and the Liberals by forcing them to come down on one or the other side of the issue. Those who come out and oppose Antifa can be reasoned with and would make useful allies. We will not agree on everything but as long as we agree that Antifa is a problem we should work together on that shared idea.

Societal

Currently Antifa enjoy the silence on their behavior on the part of the Mainstream Media. Any coverage that makes it on the news is down played as a few bad actors among a largely ‘peaceful’ protest.

Thanks to social media and the camera phone we can see what truly goes on. We need to film Antifa doing the horrible things they do. We need to film them saying the horrible things they say. The media might be able to downplay a story but they will be forced to show a video and the average person will be able to make the choice for themselves.

If a video goes viral it will bring the violence of Antifa into the daily life of the average person and allow them to see what really happens. To do this we need to build relationships with the media as well as police departments.

We also need to build relationships with business owners who have their property damaged by Antifa, people who have been shouted down and no platformed by Antifa and Progressives and community leaders who want to see an end to their violence.

Never Apologize to a Mob

By considering all these factors we’ll be able to end the violence of Antifa. If we continue to show up and peacefully share ideas we will win. If they attack us for doing so, we will win because they clearly have no argument against us.

We need to understand both our ideas and their ideas. This will allow us to push back against their narrative more effectively. Take some time to read or listen to those in the conversation of ideas.

We need to press those in politics to clearly come out for or against Antifa. Most will try to waffle or deflect, keep asking questions, showing up to town halls and never be afraid to state what you believe as long as you do it respectfully and calmly.

Forge relationships with business owners who have been damaged by Antifa or have suffered thanks to the outrage mob. In their quest for ideological purity Antifa will push people away who do not live up to their ideals of perfection. While you might not agree with some of these people on several issues we can come together under the shared goal of doing something about the violence of Antifa.

The culture war will not be fought on one front but on many and we need to be ready to engage in all of them. Do not damage the cause of liberty and freedom by acting in a silly way because you want to own or burn progressives. It might be funny at the moment to get them mad but remember the mainstream media is more than ready to take your actions and apply them to the whole group.

Only do what you know to be right and would be proud to do. Never apologize to the mob for doing what you believe is right, they will only see it as an admission of guilt. They know no forgiveness and will turn the apology into a weapon.

Antifa is a problem, they lie, commit acts of violence, and are willing to destroy your life if you disagree with them. We can beat them but only by being better than they are. We must remember the quote by Nietzsche “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster…when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”

Thank you for the read and I hope these ideas are a start down the road to ending this time of chaos.

Violent Antifa Attacks Freedom and Courage Rally

Freedom and courage, ideas you would think we all can come together on. Yet at a rally for freedom and courage held by Patriot Prayer in Portland Oregon on Saturday June 30^th 2018 we found out that was not necessarily true.

In The Park

As I arrived at Terry Schrunk Plaza I was greeted by several police officers and metal barricades surrounding the park. Across the street were a large number of black clad protesters known as Antifa, along with unions, NW Carpenters and the Iron Workers Union.

As I entered the park a police officer stopped me and said that if I brought any weapons past this point that I was subject to arrest. Ten feet past him were officers patting people down.

The police made sure we had no weapons before entering the plaza. No such checks were made for the Antifa protesters. Once inside there was music playing, people talking and waving American flags. If Antifa was not across the street it almost seemed like a Fourth of July BBQ was about to start.

We waited for the last shuttle bus to arrive. Previously Antifa would find the vehicles of the people at the rallies and vandalize them by slashing tires and throwing acid on the paint. People have also been harassed and assaulted leaving rallies in the past.

Patriot Prayer organized the shuttle bus to ensure the safety of the people at the rally and their property. Once everyone arrived the speeches started. Joey Gibson spoke about courage. One woman spoke about her family being assaulted by Antifa and how her father ended up in the hospital.

Their lawyers told her family not to go to the rally as it would reflect poorly on their case. Will Johnson spoke about the increasing violence of the radical left and the passive acceptance of the mainstream left. The last speaker was a trans-woman who spoke about free speech and religious freedom.

Once the speeches wrapped up we sang along to We Will Rock You by the band Queen and listened to an original rap by Political Muscle. After this we gathered together and got ready for our permitted march.

Taking the Streets

As soon as we started moving forward Antifa immediately started throwing objects at us. Some threw eggs, others bottle full of liquid, and a few people threw rocks. One person even let off some firecrackers, to which the Department of Homeland Security fired paintballs filled with pepper at the protesters.

The organizers of the rally and march urged people to ignore the violent protesters and to keep moving. The marched moved on down Madison and made a left turn onto 2^nd street. According to Joey Gibson the Portland Police had agreed to escort us along our parade route to protect us from Antifa.

As we started to cross Main Street it was clear that the police had failed in their duty. No one stood between us and the screaming protesters in black. Antifa rushed down the street, yelling and throwing items into the crowd.

Just as the main body was about to cross the street an Antifa protesters threw a mortar into the rally goers. The impact of the explosion rattled the ear drums. This is when the fighting started. Antifa threw several more mortars, which landed mere feet from people.

As the fighting died down the Antifa members ran back to the other end of the block driven back by the rally goers defending their constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble.

After this melee the Portland Police pulled the permit for the march. We were told to walk on the sidewalk only and that we would no longer have the protection of the Portland Police. We continued walking but when a few more fights broke out the police declared the event a riot.

It was at this time we made the choice to return to the plaza. As we get everyone back into the plaza the organizers called the shuttle buses. It was at this time we were informed that we had to leave the plaza. Joey Gibson told DHS that we refuse to leave until the bus gets here so we can get the elderly and women out.

We packed one bus but the rest of us were turned out onto the streets of Portland where we had people yelling and screaming at us. We stuck together and waited until the next shuttle bus arrived.

I was told by several people that I was dressed fairly normally and if I took my hat with the American flag on it off I should be able to slip away. I refused to take off my hat. I should not have to hide a hat with the American flag on it while walking in a city in the US.

If people want to harass and assault me for wearing a hat with the flag of the United States of America on it, they are the ones with the problem not me. I wore my hat proudly and refused to take it off for anyone.

As we were waiting for the shuttle bus another fight broke out. The police fired a round of tear gas into the melee. It was at this time I decided it was a good time to head back to my car with another guy. Safety in numbers.

The Walk Home

As I started the long walk back to my car with the other rally goer, we started reflecting on the rally as a whole. We shared our experiences and any crazy story that happened that day. I was wearing a hat with an American flag on it as well as a small American flag I picked up along the way.

The person I was walking with was dressed up almost like a superhero. He had a green mask and green gloves on with a Kekistan flag on his back as a cape. I expected to get a few weird looks as most people do not know about Kekistan but as it turned out my American flag drew more ire than anything else.

We were standing on the corner waiting for the light to change so we could cross the street. A man and a woman pushing a stroller with a baby in it walked toward us on our right trying to cross the other street.

The man stepped up behind me and said “I have a lighter ready to burn that fascist flag.” Of course I turned and immediately noticed his wife and baby. We exchanged a few choice words but what shocked me the most was that this man thought it was a good idea to antagonize two strange men he considered fascists while he was out on a walk with a child.

We crossed the street as I shouted he could take the flag from my cold dead hands. A few blocks later a woman started screaming at us “Get out of our city you fascist!” She carried on in this way as the guy she was with pulled her along clearly not wanting to start anything without superior numbers.

It is clear that flying the American flag in Portland is socially unacceptable and people are ready to harass and even assault you (if they have the numbers advantage that is). The average person did not care but there was definitely a violent element ready to hurt people in the city.

Sleeping on the Job

When the rally was over Joey Gibson released a statement. He explained the promises made by the Portland Police when he obtained the permit. Promises that were broken.

It is not the officers I blame for these broken promises. Speaking with them and others it is clear that the orders are coming from above. How high and from who I can only speculate and the police officers remain silent not wishing to lose their jobs.

The DHS did an amazing job of protecting us on federal property and even worked with us when we were trying to get the shuttles to return. The Portland Police seemed to not want this march to happen. They were more than willing to let Antifa attack people so that the permit was pulled and it could be declared a riot.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has tried to get permits for Patriot Prayer events pulled in the past but failed because the rally was held on federal property. It is clear that the mayor of Portland has a bias against the group and has no qualms about using his public office to try and silence those he does not agree with.

To do so would be politically unpopular with the average person, who still believes in Freedom of Speech and loves their country. I do not envy Ted Wheeler, he seems to be stuck between the increasingly violent and authoritarian nature of his party and supporters and the oath he took when he accepted public office to uphold the constitution of the United States and of the State of Oregon.

If he protects the rights of Patriot Prayer to peaceable assemble than the Progressive hate mob will do him in, but if he does not say he will protect the rights of US citizens he will be sleeping on the job. So he says he will protect the group and then has the police stand down knowing Antifa will attack and start a fight.

This gives him an excuse to pull the permit. He can say he tried to protect Patriot Prayer but by pulling the permit he knows he will be giving Antifa exactly what they want, enabling a group who could care less about him outside of the amount of control they have over him. Antifa thinks if the march gets cancelled it is a win. They think it is a win to silence people. Antifa are not peaceful protesters, they are a group who is more than willing to use violence to push their political agenda. 

They are not activists, they are violent terrorists.

Asylum Seeker

As I sat listening to the news a certain phrase struck me. They were talking about the issue of immigration and what is going on at the border when I heard both the interviewer and the person he was interviewing use the words asylum seeker.

Earlier they had used the term immigrant or migrant but switched as the story went on so that it would have gone almost unnoticed. As a writer and someone interested in language and the words we use this switch hit my ears like a baseball bat.

The Evolution

The switch from immigrant to asylum seeker is no accident and it is not the first time our language has been used to change the narrative.

The original, and legal, term was illegal alien. This term was clear and concise meaning a person who entered the country outside of the legal means who was not a citizen of the country.

The term alien was too alienating so the language was changed. Instead of illegal aliens we now had illegal immigrants. The change was small so we all went along with it without giving it much thought.

An alien was someone from a foreign country but an immigrant was someone moving from one country to another. A subtle but important difference. It made it seem like the person was just looking for a home, not that they had a home they left for someplace else.

Recently the term was changed again, dropping the word illegal and leaving us just with immigrant. Activists started using phrases such as no one can be illegal. This changed happen very quickly and was done very openly.

It was done for a sinister reason, so that opposing the arrival of illegal aliens could be twisted to call someone a racist and a xenophobe. An immigrant is someone who is coming into this country from another looking for a home. If they are just immigrants than opposing their arrival means you oppose letting anyone into this country, when in reality you do not want someone to come to this country illegally.

The next change that is coming is the term asylum seeker. This is not someone simply moving into another country, but someone fleeing one country due to violence or disaster. We have seen this term used to justify illegal immigration into Europe.

This term produces sympathy for the person trying to get into another country illegally. Once you start calling all illegal aliens asylum seekers, suddenly you’ll have nothing but ‘asylum seekers’ crossing the border.

The Muddling of Language

It is a muddling of our language so that we can no longer talk to each other. The quickest way to get people to not talk to each other is to have them speak a different language.

While most people will mean illegal alien when they use the term immigrant or illegal immigrant there are others who will hear a different meaning. They will believe that you oppose anyone coming into this country and then assume that you only oppose them coming in because of the color of their skin.

If you have ever listened to two people speaking in a different language around you than you have probably at one point assumed they are talking about you. Sometime this might be true but for the most part they are probably just talking about themselves, but that feeling is still real.

For example the statement, increased border security is a good thing to prevent illegal aliens from entering our country, can mean that you are fine with people entering the country but just want them to do it legally. To another person it means you hate anyone coming into this country who does not have the same skin color as you and you are xenophobic because they are just fleeing their shit hole country, but don’t call it a shit hole country because that will trigger me too, and it also makes you a racist.

Once you realize our language is being muddled you have to ask yourself the question, why? Why would someone not want people to be able to talk to each other? Because they want them to fight. If we cannot solve our problems together using our words than we will resort to using violence.

If we are fighting than we will organize ourselves into groups and we will lose one of the foundational advancements of our culture, the sovereignty of the individual. We will seek protection in the group and doing so will mean that we must give up more of what makes us individuals.

Who?

Once you realize our language is being manipulated, naturally you will want to know who is doing it. The answer is a difficult one because it not one person or group. The answer is we are all manipulating the language.

If we switch over from illegal alien to immigrant we are participating in the game of language manipulation. The awful thing about this is that even if you ‘win’ at this game you still win at the game of manipulation because you have already stopped playing the game of truth.

Language does change and evolve naturally. For example the word literally now can mean both something literal and something figurative. This change, even though it seems silly, is perfectly acceptable. It is when this change is either forced, such as will bill C-16 in Canada, or intended to manipulate that you will see a problem created.

Try listening for a week to the words people use and ask yourself why they used that word instead of another one. Listen to the words you are using and ask yourself the same question, I think you will be surprised by your answer.

This is why it is so important to be careful with the words you use. Always aim for using the best words you have to describe what you are talking about in the clearest detail whenever possible. Tell the truth, or at the very least do not lie.

A Professor Against Political Correctness

I first encountered Jordan Peterson on a YouTube video when he was part of a Free Speech event on the University of Toronto Campus. At this event protesters called him all sort of names, they unplugged the sound system and created so much white noise so that the speakers could not talk.

I had seen this type of event happen before, but this time something seemed different. I slowly realized that the things Professor Peterson was saying were articulate and well thought out versions of what I had in my mind.

I had to know more about this person. Thanks to the power of the internet I was able to find hours of video on YouTube. The first ones I arrived at were his videos against Bill C-16 that was being discussed in the Canadian Parliament.

Bill C-16

Professor Peterson made three videos where he addressed his issues with this piece of legislation. The series is called Professor against Political Correctness (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). In these videos he talks about the law itself as well as the doctrine and ideas behind the law and those who are pushing for it.

Little did Professor Peterson know that his three videos on an obscure piece of Canadian legislation would attract global attention. He simply thought the law crossed a line that he would not cross, the codification of compelled speech into law.

In his videos he even says that the act of making the videos could be interpreted as illegal under the Ontario human rights commission. He was told he was overreacting at the time but the University of Toronto sent him a letter telling him that he needed to take down the videos and what he was doing was probably illegal, providing justification for his earlier fear.

This stance brought a lot of attention to Professor Peterson, not all of it positive, and started him on the road of speaking tours and a new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Activist Assault

“This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos.” Said Professor Nathan Rambukkana of Wilfred Laurier University.

The quote was uttered during an interrogation of teaching assistant Lindsey Shepard. She was being reprimanded for playing a video of Jordan Peterson in her university classroom. A video that was played on Canadian TV station TVO, broadcasted to the public and at the time of this writing has been seen close to 1 million times on YouTube.

Before this protesters at McMaster University tried to shut down a talk given by Jordan Peterson by making a lot of noise and using air horns to drown him out. Peterson ignored them and kept on talking, eventually moving the talk outside and giving it there.

More recently a surreal scene took place at a talk at Queens College as protestors interrupted the speech by jumping on stage. Another shouted from the audience, while protestors outside banged on windows and doors. Shouts of ‘lock them in and burn it down’(3:44) could be heard as other protesters attempted to block the door from the outside using trash cans. One protestor, who broke a window, was arrested carrying a garrote.

Along with these protests numerous smears have been made against Peterson in the media. He has been called alt-right, a homophobe, and transphobe to name a few, despite identifying as an English Liberal.

The personification of this assault can best be seen in an interview Peterson did with Cathy Newman on England’s Channel 4. One thing that becomes clear in that interview is that the strawman built up of who Peterson is does not hold up to reality.

Sorting it Out

With all the bad press and protests how do you figure out what Peterson is actually about? Go to the source. He has hundreds of hours of videos on YouTube, from college lectures to personal videos recorded in his home.

You could read his books, Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos or check out his public speaking events.

Jordan Peterson is known to give advice such as ‘clean your room’ imploring people to physically clean their room and in doing so taking control of a small part of their world. Setting it in order so that it is clean, functional, and beautiful. It is a call to set your own life in order before you try to criticize or change the world.

Rule 4 from 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is ‘Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today.’ A call to do something no matter how small to make yourself slightly better than you were the day before. Imagine how much better you would be after a month of doing that every day.

So why has Peterson garnered so much attention? For those who are interested in his ideas he offering them a message of personal responsibility and individuality. For those how see him as alt-right (he is not by the way) they fall into a few different camps. Those who have only heard about him as a transphobe second hand and believe it without checking him out for themselves and those who see him as a threat to their ideological and cultural hegemony.

Yet do not take my word for it, I encourage you to look for yourself. If you are interested in hearing it straight from Jordan Peterson, he has a speaking event at the Keller Auditorium in Portland Oregon on June 25. There will also be a book club conversation about his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos in Beaverton Oregon on June 23^rd.

Eight Principles to Unite the Republican Party

These are the 8 principle I think we as Republicans can all agree on. I understand that I am not the ultimate authority on these subjects, but this is my attempt to explain and articulate these ideas.

Through conversation and further reading and thought these ideas will evolve, but I will be aiming at seeking the truth of these principles. While I might not always get everything correct I have faith that if I employ the guiding light of truth I will at least be able to move in the right direction.

The Importance of Agreed Principles

Possessing a set of agreed principles produces many benefits to any type of association, from a family to a nation. It provides a common narrative and language that can unite people.

If you look at a company or industry you will quickly discover they have their own type of language. They may employ the language native to the country, so any speaker of that language could understand, generally speaking, the words being used. But certain terms and words will have different meaning than the common usage.

Language is more than just words, it is the meaning behind those words. It is this shared meaning that generates the narrative that binds a group together. Take a look at the word Racism. For most people racism means something like discrimination or hatred of a group of people based on race. To others it means power plus privilege.

To those with the first meaning, the narrative is that anyone can be racist by simply hating a group of people based on the immutable characteristic of race. The narrative of the second meaning only allows those who possess power and privilege to be racist. If someone or some group lacks either of those characteristic they are incapable of being racist.

Both groups would probably agree that racism is bad, but they will find themselves at odds because they do not share the same narrative of what is racism. The power plus privilege narrative allows those who believe in it the justification for hating groups of people if it is done by those who are viewed to lack power and/or privilege.

Those who follow the first narrative will see any hatred of a group of people based on race as racism, even if it is done by those who are perceived to lack power and/or privilege. This is why agreed principles, meaning a shared narrative, is so important.

The Republican Party has lost the sense of what it means to be a Republican. This is due to a loss of First Principles, grounding ideals that we all agree on and unite us.

Currently the slightest disagreement results in someone being called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) or not a real Republican. My hope in articulating these principles is to build a foundation that can bring us all together.

Note: These principles are presented in no particular order and are up for disagreement and discussion.

Principle 1: Sovereignty of the Individual

One of the greatest ideas of western culture is the primacy of the individual over the group. This idea sprung out of the Judeo Christian idea that each person is created with the divine spark within them.

Each person has the freedom to live their life as they see fit as long as they are not violating the liberty of others. This places the power, and the responsibility associated with that power, on the shoulders of each person.

This idea was expressed in the Declaration of Independence when it was written “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Each individual consents to invest a part of their sovereign power into the government so that it can better protect the natural rights of the individual.

The individual is possessed of all natural rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, association, and self-protection. It is the choice of the individual to consent, not necessarily to agree with, to the government a part of their power so long as the government uses that power to protect and expand liberty and freedom.

When a government abuses this power, a government simply being a collection of individuals, the individuals can withdraw this consent and abolish the government and replace it with one more favorable to them. This does not mean that a violent revolution is in order, but could be done through the use of the ballot box.

Principle 2: Private Property

The idea of private property is that an individual not only owns their possessions and property but that they own themselves. This self-ownership was one of the greatest advancements in Western thought.

The natural extension of this thought was the death knell for slavery. If you as an individual own yourself than no one else can own you.

The idea that an individual can own something also lends itself to the right of privacy and the prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures. If you own something then no one has the right to take it from you without due process.

Ultimately this principle lends itself to borders. If you as an individual own something you have a right to grant or deny access to that thing or property. Taking this out farther, the state, which is a collection of individuals, can determine who is and is not allowed access to the country.

Principle 3: Fiscal Responsibility

This involves both taxation and spending. It is okay to have welfare programs as long as they work, create the desired outcome, and we have the money to maintain them. Republicanism sees debt as a pathway toward corruption and it must be avoided if a just and functioning state is to be maintained.

We know lowering taxes help the average person and boosts the economy. Money is most effectively used when the decisions are done by the individuals most invested in the outcome and success of those decisions.

This does not mean there is no role for the government to play in public works, but they should be financed as locally as possible. There is no reason the people of Utah should have to finance public works in Florida that they will never see the benefit nor will they gain personally for doing so.

So we want to keep taxes as low as possible, yet for this to be effective we have to be willing to also cut spending. Government spending is highly susceptible to corruption, contracts being awarded to friends and family members. We saw this with former Governor Kitzhaber and his girlfriend’s consulting firm.

Another way government spending gets out of control is that they are incentivized to lose. If a department is not producing results in the public sector they always claim the problem is that they did not have enough funding.

This ends up with ineffective programs increasing in size and requiring more money. The politicians who started these pet projects gain nothing by admitting they were flawed, in fact it could cost them their job. So they say the only reason it failed was due to not enough funding, often blaming the other party for obstruction of those funds.

The department heads go along with this because it looks good to run a department that is growing and it covers any wrong doing on their part.

This is simply a blame shifting tactic that has a high cost, both in terms of money and public trust. This is why government spending and programs should be as local as possible, it increases accountability and oversight by the public who is funding these programs.

Principle 4: Individual Virtue

In order to better understand this we must have a definition of what virtue is. Naturally virtue is going to have as many meaning as there are people, but for right now we are going to take it to mean doing what is morally right.

This is not a loud and publicly shared virtue but a personal and individual kind of virtue. It is not virtuous to disparage an individual because you believe they lack virtue, which is just a different type of virtue signaling.

There are a few kinds of virtue signaling. The first kind is shaming others for not being virtuous. When you do that you are implying that you possess more virtue than the person you are shaming. At that point is has become more about demonstrating publicly your virtue or the lack of virtue of another person.

The second kind of virtue signaling is the one often seen during protests. People publicly stating causes they support, not just because they think it is the virtuous thing to do, but because they are seeking praise from their peers and the public at large.

These types of virtue signaling seek to draw attention on the individual to be praised for their good deed or to punish those who seem to be less virtuous. Both are corrupting influences. The goal of virtue signaling is praise and attention, not an attempt to live a good life.

Instead virtue is trying to do what is right regardless of praise. To be clear, praise of virtue is not bad itself, but when the goal is praise or attention instead of virtue it tends to move an individual away from doing what is right to doing what is popular.

Individual virtue means that given the means and opportunity to do something wrong that you make the choice to do what is right. An example of this would be going into a convenience store that is very busy with your own coffee cup filling it up and walking out.

You could get away with this very easily and the clerk or cops probably would not do much to stop you, but morally it is still stealing. A virtuous individual would wait in line and pay for the coffee.

Principle 5: Rule of Law

In Republicanism the country is not ruled by a person or people but is under the rule of the agreed upon laws. This means that everyone, from the rich to the poor, the famous and infamous, the highest elected office and the common person, are all subject to the law.

This does not mean that all laws are just or that you have to agree with every law, but you must respect the law. If you find a law unjust or harmful, seek to change it through the legal means. We all must accept that there are going to be laws we do not like but must follow in order to maintain a functioning society.

The reason the rule of law is important is that it is a check on power. In order for it to function properly the law must be accessible and understandable by the average person. The Roman senator and historian Tacitus was correct when he observed that “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”

When the law grows in complexity and is no longer understood by the average person, it loses its ability to check power and instead becomes a tool for the individual(s) in the position of power.

The rule of law breaks down and becomes corrupt when it is being used as a weapon to settle personal scores and vendettas as opposed to settling disputes between individuals. “In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs.” Walter Lippmann, An Inquiry into the Principles of a Good Society (Boston, 1937) p. 267)

Distributive justice or social justice, meaning the application of the rule of law that varies depending on perceptions of privilege, wealth, and opportunities, is a corruption of the rule of law and blind justice. F.A Hayek was correct when he wrote:

“…[T]he main difference between the order of society at which classical liberalism aimed and the sort of society into which it is now being transformed is that the former was governed by principles of just individual conduct while the new society is to satisfy the demands for ‘social justice’ –or, in other words, that the former demanded just action by the individuals while the latter more and more places the duty of justice on authorities with power to command people what to do.” F.A. Hayek The Mirage of Social Justice (1976) p. 65-66

It is this collection of power to administer justice that can corrupt the rule of law and it is the duty of the citizens to protect against that corruption.

Principle 6: Opposing and Limited Government

In order for a government to be able to perform its duties it must be invested with the power to carry out those duties. The founding fathers were aware that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This is why they structured the government the way they did. They intended the various branches to oppose each other as a way to check one branch from gaining more power over the others.

Republicanism believes that a government is necessary to protect the rights of the individual against the mob as well as outside forces. In this line of thought a government should adjudicate disputes between individuals and protect the country from other nations.

When you allow a government more and more power over your life, you give up your freedom for a false sense of security. If a government becomes too powerful it can become a danger to its citizens as opposed to a benefit to their liberty.

This is why small federal government and active local government works best. It allows those closest to the problem to address it in the way most suitable to themselves. A government can also take up tasks the responsibilities that cannot be effectively solved by the private sector, such as monitoring drinking water and disaster relief.

Yet it should be up to the locality to determine how much of a role they want their government to take. A good rule when thinking about where to draw that line on government power is to ask yourself if you would be comfortable with those who hold opposing political beliefs to possess such power. If you answer no than to do not grant that power to the government, because at some point in the future they will be in that position and will not be shy about using that power against you.

When former President Obama was in office I heard a few of my Democrat friends remark that they wished he could just implement the policies he was advocating for. When I pointed out this was a bad idea they often dismissed me as a Republican who just opposed Obama. Yet I doubt they would be comfortable placing the power they wished for former President Obama into the hands of President Trump.

In order to secure liberty for the individual a government must be limited in its power and the best way to accomplish this goal over time is to create a government with opposing powers limited by the rule of law.

Principle 7: Civic Duty

Duty does not mean blindly following orders, but taking the responsibility to do what is needed and expected of you as part of a civilized society. This can take many forms, from military service to public office to voting.

In order to maintain freedom and liberty for individuals, those individuals must willingly accept the duty and responsibility for their own life as well as for the betterment of those around them. Take an interest in what is going on in your local community and help out where you can.

In times of war, join the army or the National Guard, and do not dodge the draft (if it is implemented). In times of peace volunteer as a firefighter, participate in jury duty, and follow the law. Be sure to stay up on current events as best you can and participate in the system by voting.

The world is a better place if everyone does what is expected of them and takes on as much responsibility as they can handle to improve the country. The amount of good and change you as an individual are capable of will amaze you once you accept your duty.

Generally speaking civic duty should never be forced but willingly accepted on an individual level. Each individual is best situated to determine how much responsibility they are willing to accept. By accepting that responsibility at an individual level the country and the world will improve as will each individuals life.

Principle 8: Inalienable Natural Rights

Human beings are possessed of inalienable natural rights, such as but not limited to free speech, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, and religious liberty. Since each individual is possessed of these rights only the individual can make the choice to give up any part of those rights.

These rights can come from God, or are simply part of the natural order of the universe. This is important because it sets those rights outside of man-made structures and orders, such as government.

Being part of a society you naturally must also give up part of your right, in the hope that by doing so your freedom will be increased. For example, an individual might willingly submit to a prohibition against yelling fire in a crowded theater, limiting free speech to protect the right to life.

These rights come from outside of man-made institutions and as such man made institution only have authority over them that the people allow. This is the social contract between the individual and the state. The state does not grant you your rights but it can negotiate limits with the individuals within the state.

Just like any other negotiation it is up to the individuals to determine what they are going to accept. This does not mean that acceptance is permanent, but the negotiation is a continuing and ongoing part of living in society.

Even if you disagree with a limit put into place, you still have the right to use your freedom of speech to seek a redress of your grievances. Remember the four boxes of liberty, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.

This is why any sort of limit placed on natural rights should be done with a great deal of skepticism, care, and consensus. Failure to do properly consider these things will lead to conflict and both sides entrenching themselves, focusing more on winning against the other side as opposed to seeking the truth and doing what is right.

Republicanism

In the Republican Party you will find many different types of people with different ideas. This variety makes it hard to reach a consensus and agree on policy and candidates. Yet if we all hold these principles we can discuss and argue in good faith with each other knowing that we all are presenting our ideas for move toward freedom and liberty for all.

With these grounding principles we tend to fall back into our groups or tribes. As history has shown tribes fight and destroy each other and do not advance civilization forward. The Republican Party has lost this shared narrative, but if we agree on these principle, or at the very least the meaning and narrative behind them, than we can unite and be a positive force for change in this country.

I am reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin when he was asked what kind of government have we got at the close of the constitutional convention in 1787 as he left Liberty Hall. He replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

A Republican system only works if the people are willing to make it work, this takes duty, responsibility, individual virtue, and respect for what has come before. Let’s rediscover our shared narrative and unite to make life better for each individual in this country by allowing them the freedom and liberty to choose their own path, their own responsibility and duty, and to live the moral life they think is best.

Edits: 6/6/18 Spelling error 'boarder' to 'borders.'