He was the only one of two people in the Republican party who stood up to corruption organized by a foreign government, and opposed the United States support of genocide. He and Green were the only ones in the Republican Party to speak up. And they got rid of them.

Remember this if you ever think the Republican Party is on your side. They uniformly work for a foreign government, and they just solidified that as a requirement for party participation. They don't work for you.

The Israel lobby within the Republican Party just posted the final nail in the constitution/coffin. They demonstrated that the structures we use to elect our representatives result in representatives that objectively do not represent us, and will represent a foreign country before they will represent their own people. They showed that there are no political solutions unless that political solution is to institute new political structures that are better hardened against co-opting. Those structures do exist. But they aren't what we have in the Constitution. Look to countries with high human development, happiness, and low corruption. Examples would be Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

A violent overthrow is not the answer. Violence will not lead to the surefootedness we need to craft and institute systems that actually work. It's hard enough working past the flaws of groupthink even without conflict. It's time to start a peaceful movement that openly uses its First Amendment rights to rationally and calmly advocate for the abolition of current political structures and for instituting new ones that work.

That's not how revolution typically happens. But it needs to be if humanity is going to progress towards systems that work. We can't remain in a state where changing political scenarios are the result of a random pinball machine of conflicts and people's emotions.

So how would this revolution operate? It would attempt to convince the public to understand intellectually that our system doesn't function as labeled and why, and then encourage people to say it out loud. If it becomes the norm in people's understanding that we are running political software that doesn't work, then it will be normal for people to advocate fixing it and replacing it. If enough people openly talk this way, the state can't lash out at their insecurities and fleeting grasp of power in a violent way, especially when no one initiated violence besides them, and it would have to be against the majority.

And so with this, I advocate for the peaceful, though absolute dissolution of the United States. It has no legitimacy on which to operate. And I, an American, have the same rights to establish institutions that work for me as the Founding Fathers did. I have within my heritage a trace along my male line to colonials who predate the generation that instituted the United States. And I have all the rights that my great great great great great grandfather did when he and his peers removed one institution and established another. I have lost zero of those rights. And it is within my plans to do it more peacefully than they did. I just plan to use the First Amendment as my primary tool. Which, by the way, his generation instituted specifically for this purpose, having just gone through that process themselves and wanting to secure the ability to do it again in a less violent manner going forward. If the First Amendment is for anything, it is for talking about replacing the government when it doesn't work.

So I am openly saying that that is what I am for.