What we must now do.

Introduction: The Necessary Shift

Amongst the fray of a castle siege, loyal defenders manned the walls against external foes. But what if the enemy has already breached the gates, slain the rightful king, and now flies their banner from the towers? What if this happened long ago, and you now sit outside the fortified walls gazing upward at the stone as arrows rain down on you?

Continuing to "defend" those walls—pouring oil over your own allies assaulting the fortifications—becomes not valor, but folly. Yet before, when you stood atop the walls and defended your king, such dedication to defensive procedure was heroism. This is the essence of counter-revolutionary ethics: recognizing that the fortress of our institutions is captured, outside our control, held by tyrants, and making the necessary shift from righteous defense to righteous offense.

This essay serves as the definitive guide to counter-revolutionary ethics, arming elites with strategic clarity while remaining accessible to laymen through analogies, memes, and concrete examples. Drawing on the immutable principles of justice and righteousness—self-evident truths that demand fealty to higher authority—we argue that ethics exist at a level of ultimacy beyond human whim. Their application varies drastically by context: In peacetime, they manifest as orderly processes; in war, as asymmetrical disruption.

The error plaguing the Right is inflexibility and unrootedness—elevating mere mechanisms like elections or judicial decrees as sacred ends, rather than tools for "the good." Worse, the continued fealty to institutions long-ago captured, and now wielded as weapons against us by an enemy regime, threatens our existence. We reject this weakness, embracing a strong ethic for victory: Recapture institutions where reasonable, wield against the enemy where possible, annihilate the perverted, and restore peace under righteousness and ordered liberty.

Meta on the Memes: Catalysts for the Ethical Shift

Go meta: Three popular Right-wing memes encapsulate the necessary pivot in counter-revolutionary ethics, diagnosing the inflexibility that dooms us and prescribing the strong adaptation for victory.

• "If your rules brought you here, what good are they?": This meme, viral in conservative circles, mocks the idolatry of mere process—elections, norms, institutions—as ends rather than tools to be oriented. It relates directly to the ethical shift by exposing how fealty to "rules" (e.g., endless appeals in captured courts, unreasonable “due process” for illegals before deportation, “respectability”) has delivered us into tyranny: Subjugation via weaponized bureaucracy, demographic inversion, and lawfare. The meme demands transcendence: Ethics aren't bound by failing mechanisms; if they "brought you here" (to a perverse regime), discard them for prudential application of the means towards righteous ends. Without this shift, we remain weak defenders of an enemy castle; with it, we become righteous assailants restoring justice.

• "Know what time it is": Originating in dissident Right discourse, this meme urges temporal awareness: We're not in peacetime polity but a Lockean state of war, where ethics morph from deference to legitimate institutions to defiance of the perverse revolution. It forces the shift by highlighting context, demanding strong actions like subversion or annihilation over moderate compromise and politicking. The meme's power: It mocks liberal "kumbaya" as suicidal denialism, positioning our ethic as victorious realism.

• "He who saves his country breaks no law": This meme, rooted in classical wisdom (often attributed to Cicero) and popularized in Right-wing circles as a call to patriotic defiance, justifies counter-revolutionary action by asserting that preserving the republic from tyranny transcends corrupted laws and statutes. It directly relates to the ethical shift by reframing resistance as moral imperative: In a state of war, breaching enemy-held institutions or demolishing perverse structures isn't criminal—it's salvific duty, aligning with transcendent justice over procedural idolatry. For elites, this empowers strategic purging of evil; for laymen, it inspires vigilant opposition to regime overreach. The meme ties seamlessly to "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God," rebutting relativism—our actions are righteous because they serve the self-evident good, not the wicked inversion of the enemy.

Tie-in: These memes bridge transcendent ultimacy with circumstantial application, rebutting relativism and allegation of hypocrisy—ours is righteous; theirs is wicked and damnable.

The Transcendence of Ethics: Ultimacy Beyond Circumstance

Ethics are not born of fleeting human consensus or procedural niceties; they stem from an unchanging standard of righteousness, where justice is pursued as an end in itself. To treat processes—be they voting booths or judicial robes—as idols is to commit the sin of elevation, placing tools above the good they serve. This perversely binds the conscience to the advance of evil, so long as it’s “by the book.” In the castle analogy, walls and moats protect life and order; but when the castle falls, clinging to "proper protocol" while enemies tunnel beneath ensures defeat. This isn't situational relativism—far from it. Just War Theory, the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate, and the fiery sermons of the Black Robe Regiment all affirm that rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, pursuing justice through proportional means, and delegitimizing institutions no longer themselves obedient to the Lord God.

Here, a presuppositional defense is in order: All ethical systems presuppose an ultimate authority—whether autonomous reason, societal consensus, or divine revelation. The latter alone provides coherence, as human standards necessarily place power as an end unto itself. Just War, as biblically grounded, demands a just cause, legitimate authority, proportionality, and right intention. Just war is defensive against aggression, protecting life and liberty as divine mandates.

Similarly, the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate presupposes divine hierarchy: Lower authorities (states, officials) must interpose against higher tyrants violating God's law, as in biblical examples of resistance to ungodly decrees. This isn't anarchy but covenantal fidelity—magistrates derive legitimacy from serving justice, forfeiting it when they invert good and evil. This was the foundation of, and fighting impetus for, the American Revolution.

Crucially, this ethic rejects the notion of "tragic choice"—the false dilemma where God supposedly presents only options entailing a "lesser sin." In a fallen world, circumstances may require actions undesirable in uncorrupted Eden, such as warfare or institutional annihilation, but these are not sins when aligned with divine command under a fallen context; they are righteous duties. Counter-revolution in our context—sieging captured strongholds—is not a compromise but a faithful application of transcendent ethics, free from moral tragedy. These ethics demand we discard failed rules for prudential application towards the good. The counterargument of relativism crumbles: Our ethic is bound by proportionality and discrimination, ensuring actions serve restoration, not vengeance. We need no deep theology to see the self-evident imprinted on our hearts: Righteousness elevates the just, crushes the wicked.

Contextual Application: From Polity to State of War

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government defines a "state of war" not by overt combat, but by any party's intent and maneuvers to negate another's defenses, reducing them to vulnerability. This begins with preparations—like positioning forces or undermining safeguards—violating rights (life, liberty, property) and justifying resistance as self-preservation. Unlike mere disagreements with a loyal opposition, war is deliberate aggression undertaken by an enemy; the aggrieved may respond proportionally to restore peace under justice.

Why the correct frame for now? Our circumstances mirror Locke's paradigm: The regime's "democracy" imposition is a de facto war via long-march infiltration and accelerationism, negating republican defenses (e.g., sovereignty, speech, merit). This isn't civil polity—it's existential siege, demanding ethical pivot from procedural fealty to counter-revolutionary zeal. Specific enemy maneuvers in 2025 exemplify this ongoing negation:

• Politics: Counter state actively organizing towards color revolution, transgressing openly laws against seditious conspiracy, insurrection, and treason, all towards the ends of imposing factious tyranny, majoritarianism and securing their own oligarchy.

• Judiciary: Endless judicial coup is underway through serial injunctions, usurpation of Executive and Legislative powers, all to preserve the illegitimate, revolutionary state.

• Prosecution/Lawfare: Weaponized process and outcomes engineered by civil society organizations utilizing your tax dollars, in concern with foreign and domestic military and intelligence agencies, seek to cripple the burgeoning counter revolution against their tyranny.

• Stochastic terrorism and anarcho-tyranny: Everyday Americans are subject to dramatically escalating criminality by the importation of foreign hordes and “restorative justice” models, while the media and thought-leaders paint targets on the back of the opposition for their zealots to act on – kinetically.

These maneuvers negate republican defenses, per Locke—marking out ours as wartime. Our ethic: Respond with symmetric strength, such as purges of the federal government or arrest of insurrectionist lower officials, aiming at righteous peace, not mirroring wicked ends.

In a normal civil polity, ethics emphasize persuasion and procedure; in war, they pivot to resistance and disruption. The American government has become so inverted—protecting criminals while prosecuting the good and decent—that it's no longer "ours." Romans 13 binds consciences only to authorities ministering good; a tyrannical order forfeits this. "When tyranny becomes law, revolution becomes duty."

Presuppositionally defending the withdrawal of consent: Governments derive practical legitimacy from covenantal consent under divine sovereignty—people entrust authority to rulers for justice's sake. When tyrants break this covenant (e.g., institutional capture inverting good and evil), consent withdraws, justifying resistance. In our ethic, withdrawal of consent isn't rebellious sin, but fidelity to transcendent order, empowering lesser magistrates to interpose and citizens to defy—never a tragic choice, but dutiful righteousness in a fallen realm.

Battlefield parallels abound. Institutions like the bureaucracy are enemy-held terrain: Subvert internally through embeds and leaks, combat openly via political warfare like defunding or executive purges. Both offensive and defensive actions converge on the same end—peace under righteousness—opposing the anarcho-tyranny where elites do as they will, while citizens suffer what they must.

To the charge of "eroding the order we're fighting for," we retort: The current order is precisely the perversion worth fighting against, nor for. Idolatry lies in sanctifying processes over justice.

Concrete examples illuminate this. The perpetual coup against Trump—color revolution preparations, dual impeachments, baseless criminal charges (91 indictments across NY, GA, DC), targeting of legal counsel (disbarments of Giuliani and Eastman), record injunctions halting policies—exemplifies maneuvering that constitutes warfare. Take the refrain “experts talk logistics” to heart. Logistics are the necessary foundation for hostilities.

The Folly of Institutional Fealty: Tools, Not Masters

Institutions captured by the enemy demand not loyalty, but war—preferring recapture first (purging loyalists into key roles), annihilation second (total demolition of irredeemable bureaucracies like DEI-infested agencies). This strong ethic rejects squishy Right weakness, which bows to rigged processes as "principled," and mocks Libertarian libertine hedonistic hellishness.

Even the Left's "ends justify the means" isn't ethical abandonment—it's consistent with their immanent ethic of power, which is why the “whatabout” and “hypocrite” labels mean nothing to them. We hold their tactics to a mirror, substituting our transcendent ethic: Actions increasing justice are righteous because our cause aligns with goodness. Theirs, even superficially similar in form or technique, is wicked, because it serves wickedness.

Return to the Founders' vision: Dramatically restricted republicanism, protecting God-given rights against mob tyranny. Yet any government righteous in the Lord—covenantal, justice-oriented—trumps damnable, revolutionary democracy. "Democracy" isn't America's heritage; it's the enemy's imposition—a synonym for Communism in practice, a Motte-and-Bailey hiding oligarchic control via divided "demos" of identity groups. The Founders loathed it as mob rule; legitimacy flows from alignment with the transcendent, not majority whims. "Our democracy" is code for leftist revolutionary ops: Long march through institutions accelerated into 2020s riots, election manipulations, and cultural inversions subverting republican foundations.

The Parasitic Weakness of Liberalism: Hacking at Christendom's Trunk

Liberalism, though distinct from overt Leftism, is the branch-sitter of doom: It perches atop Christendom’s tree while hacking at the trunk, denying the faith and the transcendence that nourishes the tree. Metaphysics and ethics become taboo, leaving a shallow and suicidal kumbaya pseudo-ethic: "Tolerance" that avoids conflict but enables tyranny. Successful only when grafted onto biblical systems, liberalism credits itself with the West's gains while eroding the basis for discerning good from evil. Detached, it devolves into gnostic hegemony, where "rational" norms mask power plays, midwifing the Left's dominance.

This weakness manifests in the moderate Right's procedural deference—"classical liberal" virtue yielding to rigged games—and sets the stage for democratic revolution. Perpetual coup examples: Lawfare as "defending liberal norms" while subverting republics; mass immigration betraying a belief in both men and culture as interchangeable cogs. Our ethic demands strength: Liberal detente brought us here—what good is it? Siege the captured castle, regrow from righteous roots.

Toward Victory: Adopting the Strong Ethic

Our war is the illegitimate imposition of "democracy” and tyranny against righteous republican foundations aligned, from the beginning, with God's law for justice. Adopt this ethic: Recapture, annihilate, restore. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God; act accordingly.