Yesterday the Supreme Court rejected—by 7 to 2—the last realistic legal option for overturning the electoral fraud.

The left has now said to Trump and everyone who voted for him, “We’re going to blatantly cheat and deny you legal redress. What are you going to do about it?”

This is it. This is The Moment of this phase of American history.

What will Trump do?

Civil war won’t be fun, but what will occur if there isn’t a civil war will be worse.

Please Stop Kidding Yourselves about the Courts

They’ve turned away every challenge that would help Trump and his voters; this includes the Supreme Court allowing Pennsylvania’s blatantly illegal ignoring and re-writing of the election rules. The Court ruled that the Constitution– a document written in 1787– mandates universal acceptance of homosexual “marriage.” They ruled that it is against the law for the President to order the enforcement of immigration law. In one of the ObamaCare suits they ruled that “by the states” means “by either the states or the federal government.” Going back further in time, they ruled that the interstate commerce clause lets states regulate any activity that does not involve interstate commerce, because the very act of not engaging in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce, you see. They ruled that the Constitution mandates legalized abortion. Within the last few weeks a lower court ruled that a state law requiring election observers does not actually require that the observers be able to observe the election.

And I just learned this:
Victory for trans advocates as Supreme Court rejects bathroom policy appeal.
“The decision lets stand a lower court ruling that upheld an Oregon school’s policy of letting transgender students use facilities that align with their gender identity.”

When the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the Texas case, it was obviously because they’re planning on eliminating the last hope of fighting the fraud legally, and betting that Trump will then give up. No one knows what Trump will do, so let’s hope they’re wrong.

If you are counting on the courts to end this in our favor, you are not merely being swayed somewhat by wishful thinking. Rather, you have left the world of fact entirely and are functioning solely on wishful thinking. There is nothing but air under your feet.

Guys, very soon we are going to be in a hot civil war. The rest of us need you as soldiers on our side! We can’t afford the luxury of just ignoring uncomfortable realities. Sooner or later this is going to go to bloodletting.

We’re Going to Win, But Not in the Courts

Stop expecting courts, especially the Supreme Court, to do the right thing. Jesus, people!

If you’re on the right, you’re supposed to be skeptical of what the media says. And yet, day after day since the election, I keep seeing people on the right say that the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. NO, IT FUCKING DOESN’T! STOP IT!

In the cold, hard world of reality, this Supreme Court won’t even “allow” President Trump write an Executive Order telling immigration authorities to enforce immigration law as it is written. That’s how ultra-left the Court is in reality. Am I speculating here, or has the Court actually done that… twice?

While a favorable Court ruling could happen, it’s a very low probability event. If it occurs, it will be a lightning strike of good luck out of the blue. It almost certainly won’t occur, so plan accordingly. I am buying preservable staples and conserving ammo. I advise you to do the same.

There is no more normality. This will go to bullets. If, God forbid, Trump simply leaves office, then the left very soon– and sooner than you think– will start trying to genocide us. We’ll fight back, of course, so there will be civil war.

If Trump fights– literally, with guys with guns, fights– that’s civil war.

If Trump miraculously manages to get a favorable set of key court rulings, then the left flips out and there is civil war.

Three possibilities. All of them involve civil war.

Don’t listen to the media telling you that the Supreme Court is super-hard-core-ultra right. Are you believing the media? Seriously? Look at what the courts actually do. I quoted Robert Heinlein’s Notebooks of Lazurus Long in my previous post and I might as well quote them again:

What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think… You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

What is actually going to happen, based on the facts– in particular, the entire twentieth century– is that left has reached the moment when it is going to start attempting wholesale slaughter of everyone who’s not both politically left and a member of a left-approved group. Soon after that they will be defeated, since they simply don’t have the numbers to win an all-out toe-to-toe war-of-attrition slaughter-fest. Quantity is a quality all its own, as someone once said.

Given the numbers involved, we could absorb casualties at a much higher ratio than one to one and still beat them handily. I am not under any illusions that politics by creating piles of bodies will be fun, but we will win it.

Now accept this, stop expecting the courts to support Trump, and prepare for what’s coming.

Pessimist by Policy, Optimist by Temperament

Robert Heinlein got this one right:

“Pessimist by policy, optimist by temperament – it is possible to be both.”

Close to right, anyway: Actually the idea is not to be exclusively a pessimist by policy, but to include all scenarios. We need to be prepared for good scenarios so if they happen we can press our advantage and rapidly end this. We need to prepare for bad scenarios so we can win even if a part of the game moves adversely for us. Which some parts will, of course.

We can’t just assume good scenarios. What prompted this post: Righties who are assuming that the courts, especially the Supreme Court, are going to bail us out. The reasons for this assumption seem to be that we have fact, law, and the Constitution on our side. But when did any of those things ever matter to a leftist judge? Anyone who assumes the courts are going to issue the correct, lawful, and just ruling is huffing paint fumes. Based on the courts’ behavior for the last several decades, this assumption is not within a parsec of realistic.

[Neurotoxin’s patented Supreme Court analysis: Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer: Leftist. Alito, Thomas: Rightist. Gorsuch: Has cucked at least once so there’s precedent for him cucking. Kavanaugh: Has cucked at least once so there’s precedent for him cucking. Barrett: Unknown, but is a white woman who virtue signaled hard by adopting two black children. Coldly, objectively: She’s at least as likely to side with the enemy as with us.

If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, this will get violent. Of course, it’s going to get violent in any case. We all knew that was going to happen sooner or later, because the left never gives up. They can’t; not having total power over other human beings is sheer torture to them. So there never was any question about whether things would eventually get bloody in the US; the only question was whether it would happen in our lifetimes. Well, it had to happen in someone’s lifetime. Turns out it’s us. There’s no doubt about that now. If we “lose” in the courts— that is, if the courts continue their habit of blatantly ignoring fact and law to get a leftist result— we will either fight it immediately while Our Guy is President or fight it from a worse position with the left in total power. If we manage to win in the courts, the left will move to the blatant violence part of its plan: Bombing the White House, rioting in the streets, etc. (I’m not sure what the rioting is supposed to accomplish, but they obviously love it.)]

The courts might bail us out, and if they do, great. But we need a plan for the more-likely case that they don’t. There are some good signs here, by the way: (1) Does it look like the Right intends to just roll over? Not from what I’m seeing. And ninety percent of Trump voters think mail-in ballots were manipulated to help Biden. (2) Does it look like the left has a plan in case we don’t just roll over? Well, they must; they’re not novices at violent revolution. But it’s also plain from the “mainstream” media coverage that they are really trying to avoid that scenario. My local paper (my woman subscribes to one for some reason) has “Biden wins” coverage to an extent that’s almost hilarious. Last week they ran a ton of stories with headlines like “Biden Wins” and “How Biden Won” and “What Biden’s Victory Means for (Farmers, Your Retirement Portfolio, whatever)” and “Local Voters React to Biden’s Win” and “Biden’s Task After His Win: Healing a Divided Nation.” Etc. Also the inevitable: “Trump Still Refuses to Concede.” Given the intensity of their attempt to win through bluff, it’s obvious that they really don’t want to have to move to the next part of their Revolution Decision Tree. The fact that that scares them is a good sign for us.

Stiffen your spine, when it needs it, by reminding yourself that the left wants to kill us all if they win.

If you’re young and you don’t believe this, because you attended schools controlled by leftists, find a good history of Communism in the twentieth century. A good history means, among other things, one not written by a communist or communist sympathizer. The surest signal that communists have taken over a country is that large-scale slaughter has begun. They always kill people by the millions, the only exceptions being when a country is so small (e.g. Cuba) that they have to settle for killing people in smaller numbers. Not only can it happen here, they’re planning to make it happen here. On Twitter, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez encouraged leftists to make lists of Trump supporters for “accountability” after they acquire more power.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. If enough people on the right, including especially President Trump, realize they intend to kill us all, it’s a mammoth strategic advantage for us: It means there’s no risk we won’t take. This gives us the freedom to be very bold in going on the offense.

I have no idea what the state delegations in Republican states that frauded up a Biden win will do. They’ll send Trump electors to the Electoral College if they understand that a leftist victory means eventual murder of them and their families. Do they understand that? In enough states? It doesn’t have to be all of the fraud states, just two or three key states.

(The latest news from Michigan on this front is not good: It seems that Michigan Republicans’ plan is to do nothing and hope that leftists won’t act like leftists this time. On Darwinian grounds those Republicans deserve what the left is eventually going to do to them, but the problem is that their cowardice and stupidity are putting the rest of us in danger too.)

If it goes to the House of Representatives it’s decided, not by a vote of the individual House members, but by a vote of their state delegations, each acting as a single voter. So, 50 states, 50 votes. Currently the House delegation split is 26 Republican, 24 Democrat or Democrat-aligned. That means we can’t rely on the House: the left only needs to find one small-population Republican state with a small number of House members, and get a majority of them to cuck. That makes it 25-25 in the House, so I imagine the outcome would be decided by… the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Don’t worry, though, they’ll never get a single Republican to cuck, right? Establishment Republicans never cuck!

(Sarc off.) You see the problem? It’s not that we can’t win; it’s that we can’t assume we’ll win in the courts or the House. And the Michigan example tells us we can’t rely on the state legislatures. If we don’t win in at least one of those three key points— all of which are uncertain— this goes to either (1) we surrender (which means we are murdered) or (2) bullets flying in both directions. In that scenario we win based on sheer numbers, I think. But the more prepared we are, the better.

Fighting Out the Election: The Supreme Court and After

I’m not sure whether Trump should take this shit to the Supreme Court.

Let’s do a head count.

For my non-US readers, who might have heard a lot of leftist bullshit to the effect that the United States Supreme Court has a 6-3 split in favor of right-wingers: remember, the left brazenly lies about everything. The actual distribution of Supreme Court justices is as follows:

Firmly leftist: Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer.

Firmly rightist: Thomas, Alito.

Kinda right-leaning, sorta: Kavanaugh, Gorsuch.

Roberts, as I remarked recently, always votes with the left when (a) it is important and (b) his vote will make a difference to the outcome. The left loves to call him “conservative” to warp people’s perception of where the political center is.

Finally, we have…

Unknown: Barrett.

Amy C. Barrett was just appointed to the Court last month and hasn’t participated in any Court decisions yet. So we lack data. But there is hair-raising evidence that she has a strong desire to virtue-signal to her left: She’s a white female who adopted two black children. Such virtue signaling is seriously worrisome: That’s the kind of person who would have orgasms at the thought of ruling against Trump so she can prove to the world how totally objective she is. “Look at me! I’m sooooo principled and objective! I even fucked over the guy who appointed me and everyone who voted for him!” Of course it’s actually unprincipled, since we’re fighting for the remaining shreds of democracy and freedom, but let’s not suppose that reality intrudes much into the thoughts of virtue signalers.

If Trump appeals an electoral case to the Supreme Court and loses, it might not look good(*) if he then says, “Ah, the Supreme Court doesn’t matter, fuck ’em.” The problem is that appealing to the Court concedes that the Court has authority in the relevant matter. So it looks silly to then say, “You’re wrong”… unless they are blatantly wrong. It is actually possible to reject their decision on those grounds. He should prepare for that by wording his case, or rather his tweets (etc.) that go along with it, in such a way to leave himself room to maneuver.

(* …to praetorians and other people who are prepared to engage in violent conflict, who will matter disproportionately when the civil war goes full-on hot. Making sure we have a good head count among those prepared to deploy force is not virtue signaling.)

The legalisms are of decreasing relevance anyway.

One way or another, this will get more violent. It’s been violent since this summer, and the left never backs down. As someone said recently, we’re past the event horizon of civil war: It hasn’t full-on started yet, but it is now inevitable, inescapable.

Since escalating violence will inexorably happen, we might as well proceed with Trump as Commander-In-Chief.

Supreme Court Paves Way for President Trump to Use Military Funds for Wall



The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.

The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

…The president celebrated the ruling on Twitter: “Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls on the southern border,” Justice Department spokesperson Alexei Woltornist said in a statement. “We will continue to vigorously defend the Administration’s efforts to protect our Nation.”

In related news, Ruth Bader Ginsberg just announced that she recently completed treatment for pancreatic cancer. I think that if the God Emperor is re-elected in 2020, we get at least one more Supreme Court appointment.

Trump Bends the Dems over…a Wall


President Trump’s speech today was a thing of beauty. He ass-raped the Dems on optics.

I watched it live. When he was only about 2/3 done, a scroll at the bottom of the screen appeared, saying “Pelosi calls Trump deal a non-starter.” Before he even finished saying what his proposed deal was!

Now he’s the guy who offered a compromise, but they said “No!” so he has no choice but to build the wall unilaterally.

Or he can just let the shutdown roll on, but now the Dems own it.

Or freakin’ both. There’s no reason Trump can’t direct the military to start building the Wall and continue holding firm on the shutdown. If Dems are assuming he’ll only do at most one of those things, they’re too used to dealing with establishment cuck Republicans.

(At the very least, as someone at Vox Popoli suggested, the President could defer deciding whether to sign a budget bill until after the Democrats’ pet judge hands down a “ruling” on the emergency wall funding. Judge nixes it? Then the shutdown continues, hurting Dem voters the most. Heh heh. More on the inevitable confrontations with the judiciary below.)

The President knew, of course, that it was almost certain the Dems would reject his proposal, so I’ll pre-emptively swat down any black-pill notion that he seriously wanted the 3-year extension of DACA. And he loaded up his proposal with so much good stuff – not budging an inch on the wall funding of $5.7 billion, adding thousands more border enforcement agents – that it wouldn’t have been horrible even if they’d accepted it. But really, he knew they wouldn’t.

Another commenter at Vox Pop: “Trump is playing with them.” Yes, he is. The most remarkable thing about his speech is that he managed to deliver it with a straight face.


The black-pill crowd in the right-osphere is saying, “Wah, I want the wall now!” Me too, but people, battle-space preparation. Think about what it comes down to, if President Trump declares a national emergency and funds the wall with military funds, and tells the Army to start building it. The Dems will instantly get a judge to say this is illegal.

Then Trump says to the Army, “The judge doesn’t have jurisdiction over this matter; I as the President have jurisdiction.”

At that point it comes down to actual Army privates with their hands on the shovels having to decide whether to heed the judge or the President.

If any decide to disobey the President, they can and will be subjected to military discipline, I trust. Obviously there won’t be many, if any. But the point is: The fewer such soldiers there are, the easier our task is, and the more swift, sure, and overwhelming our victory. The more thoroughly we crush the left, the better.

Trump’s proposal and the Dems’ predictable lunatic response preps the soldiers to see the truth, that our side is the reasonable side and the other side is insane. The more obvious it is that the Dems are beyond the pale, the more of those hands-on-shovels privates are on our side.

The President is raping the Dems so hard that I wonder what the fuck they’re even thinking. Perhaps they’re hoping they can force him to go the emergency route and then get a judge to swat it down, and he will cave in. If so, they’re putting all their chips on the table and betting everything that he won’t go Jackson.

Plainly, at some point the President will have to go Jackson on the judiciary. The judiciary is an enemy camp. We can’t simply let a bunch of – unelected! – judges say, “Sorry, the U.S. is not allowed to have borders.” That is so insane, so unreasonable on its face that it’s absolutely worth provoking a constitutional crisis over. There are few things that judges are likely to do that would be more obviously casus belli for a Constitutional crisis or even civil war. I just hope the President understands that.

We’ll win. How many liberals are actually willing to fight, as in risking death in a hot civil war, over “The U.S. doesn’t have a right to control its own borders.” LOL. All we have to do is make it clear that we aren’t going to back down, that we actually ARE willing to fight over this.

The judiciary is a minefield for the left anyway, given Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s rapidly deteriorating health. Tick tock, Ruth.

Meanwhile, I think a palace rebellion that ousts Pelosi from her Speaker position is increasingly likely as Dems’ constituents start screaming at them due to the shutdown blocking their gibs. Or a false flag assassination of Pelosi by the left, designed to look like it was done by the right. It’s absolutely the sort of thing they’d do.

Barring that, until she and the other Dems cave in to reality, it’s “Squeal like a pig, Nancy!”

An exchange I hope to hear about the Supreme Court

…in the near future, pertaining to the Court’s upcoming “ruling” on immigration:

Random person: Mr. President, do you pledge to abide by the Court’s ruling?

Trump: I pledge to take the text of the Court’s ruling as seriously as the Court takes the text of the Constitution.

Tax bill repeals Obama’s unconstitutional mandate

Tax bill passes both houses of Congress, heads to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

Best part of it: It repeals the “individual mandate” that was the unconstitutional, overriding horror of ObamaCare.

BONUS: So-called “Justice” Roberts, who sold himself like a gutter whore to find that this thing was constitutional, will now see it repealed. It was all for NOTHING. Yes, Roberts: You sucked donkey cock for a five-dollar bill… and when you looked at the five dollar bill later, it turned out it was counterfeit.

Contemplate that and despair, you lawless piece of shit.

Lawless Judiciary, Part 12,834,019

It is not a subtle point that the President has the right to restrict immigration. It’s a blatant and undeniable aspect of US law, specifically U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182:

Federal Immigration law section 1182(f): (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

(Via Kakistocracy. Here’s a related link at Marketwatch, which if anything has an anti-Trump bias.)

So when any judge “decides” that Trump’s Executive Order on immigration is illegal, that judge is knowingly, brazenly lying.

We need to fundamentally change the judiciary’s role in the U.S. It will be good if Trump simply ignores an illegal ruling from the Supreme Court (should such happen) and orders immigration enforcement personnel to enforce his Executive Order, over the protests of the Court. I have hope Trump will do this if it comes to it.

It will be even better if, in addition to that, we reconstruct the government to make it explicit that the judiciary’s power is limited. However, there’s no way to do this that would be totally unambiguous, as far as I can see.

Therefore, we have to do away with an unelected judiciary. Including at the Supreme Court level.

What we have now is unelected dictators who feel absolutely at liberty to ignore the law, convinced they will never face any negative consequences. The sheer smugness in their blatant flouting of the law! A judge who reads the Constitution and finds a right to homosexual “marriage” in it, is a judge who feels that his position is absolutely secure. The insult to your intelligence is not subtle, or accidental.

Similarly, a judge who reads the passage above on federal immigration law and asserts that it prevents Trump from controlling immigration (!), or reviews the history of the nation’s restrictions on immigration and claims the Founding Fathers intended open borders, is a judge who feels absolutely sure that nothing unpleasant is ever going to happen to him as a result. It is a judge who is giving you a cocky smirk and saying, “What are you going to do about it?”

That question must be answered. And it must be answered sharply and painfully.

You cannot let someone abuse you and then say, to your face, “I can do whatever I want to you, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” without beating them down. It’s an existential issue, because if you don’t beat them down they will think they can do whatever they please to you in the future.

Make no mistake, these rulings are a deliberate shit test. This is the Left consciously testing us to see how far they can push us and get away with it.

What we are faced with now is dictatorship. That’s not a figure of speech; it is the literal state of affairs. There is a word in the English language for a person who
(1) makes law at will, unconstrained by tradition, institutions, or any other limits,
(2) is not elected.
Such a person is a dictator. This is speaking precisely, not rhetorically.

Since we can’t effectively prevent them from making up whatever laws they please, we are going to have to make them accountable to voters. Yes, the Constitution is going to have to be changed. This is not going to happen without… um… significant institutional reconstruction.

But that’s a reform for a little bit of a longer horizon. The immediately important thing is to ignore the “judge’s” ruling. And if this goes to the Supreme Court and the Court defies the law and the Constitution, then Trump and his enforcement apparatus must ignore the Supreme Court.

The DHA and the INS, or whoever enforces immigration law these days, must simply ignore the Supreme Court. And Trump should mobilize the military if that’s necessary.

Yes, we are rapidly heading for a Constitutional crisis. But the Left is seeing how much we’ll put up with, and we’ve put up with so much over the last 50 years that it has now reached the point of them saying, “Let’s see if they’re willing to go all the way to a Constitutional crisis!” Our answer must be “Yes,” otherwise it’s slavery to unelected dictators.

By the way, if the Supreme Court does hand down an open borders ruling, it’s not certain
(1) What Trump will tell the DHS, the INS, and the military to do,
(2) what they’ll do if he points out that the Court’s ruling is illegal and unconstitutional and tells them to ignore it, or
(3) that we’ll win any conflict that will arise out of such a scenario.

However, it’s certain that we’ll be totally defeated if we cave in on immigration, so there’s nothing to lose. This may end in a no-foolin’ shooting civil war. But so be it. Leftists – as the history of the 20th and 21st centuries bears out – have a tendency to get overcocky, which can’t be slapped down with mere words. At some point you have to actually show them, by direct action, that there really are limits to what normal people will let them get away with.