Where do we trace our legitimacy from?

[Cornfed]

There is a feeling on the alt-right that the current regime is illegitimate. We should depose the current scum not necessarily because they are genociding us, but rather because their regime represents a coup at some time and is therefore unlawful. Suppose we agree that since the 30s it has all been bankster Corporate governance which is unlawful. Where do we go back to? Whose laws should we regard as legitimate? It is a serious question. If you look at it, you could say there has not been a lawful government since the time of Good King Edward the Confessor.

[gnosis]

This is a good question.

I think we can not simply return to the constitution and rely on the argument that the current government is violating it.

Maybe we can learn from the attitude of 19th century Mormons who left the U.S. and colonized the Utah territory before it was a state. Is it possible we could claim our legitimacy through theology or reports of experiences of divine revelation?

We could then argue that God wants our people to have a homeland, which was the Jews' argument as well as what early Mormons claimed.

Alternatively, what about claiming the land is rightfully ours because it was first settled by our distant ancestors (long before Asiatics crossed the land bridge)?

[Cornfed]

I really think this is an important topic. De-legitimatizing the current evil regime is an important weapon in our arsenal. But we have no agreement on what is legitimate. I think this is one of the reasons that Peter Nolan's movement to establish Common Law courts hasn't prospered much to date (I hope it will). They really would be starting from scratch, as there seems to be no precedent for lawful government that someone has not simply made up. So where do we go to?

[Cornfed]

This is a good question.

I think we can not simply return to the constitution and rely on the argument that the current government is violating it.

Yes, clearly by any rational standard the US Constitution is unlawful and represents a coup by a small group of evil scumbags. Of course the rebellion against Britain was completely unlawful and the justifications for it are just whining drivel. Moreover, given that they used hostile foreign powers to achieve their aims, everyone associated with that event during and subsequent should have been (and be) regarded as a traitor and hanged. But then where does that leave us?

[gnosis]

We can't return to the divine right of kings. There is no aristocracy to go back to. And even if there were, that wouldn't be a good idea.

Establishing a new fascist leader for our people may also not be such a good idea.

I also think that any successful new political order will depend on either a revitalized Christianity or a new religion.

[Ghost]

.

[Wolfeye]

Legitimacy by legalization doesn't strike you as a conflict of interest? I grasp that there's good & bad, but the idea that someone should mindlessly follow laws (whatever they may be) because of their "lineage" is problematic. Identity doesn't change output, so it would be a little bit like following your father's bad advice because he's your father.

For instance: Maybe he's destroyed every marriage he's ever been in, maybe he drank to the point of being disabled in some way, maybe he just usually doesn't pay attention to details & just makes careless decisions. Are any of these things going to have some kind of a better effect because you're mimicking your father, instead of self-generating these behavioral traits? No, of course not. Following inaccurate directions from OnStar works the same way- it's a complex piece of machinery, but it's giving bad information. The fanciness means nothing on that level.