American separatists bear no relation to marxist agitators who wish to enslave the world to communism.

"Even in the founding days English loyalists were mocked, attacked and degraded by the Patriots (Antifa)."

How about court cases?

THE REVOLUTIONARY AMERICAN JURY:
A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779
PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS
Carlton F.W. Larson

"The British occupation of Philadelphia was the seminal event of the War for Independence in Pennsylvania. Following Washington's defeat at Brandywine Creek, the British army entered Philadelphia on September 26, 1777. The Continental Congress and the Pennsylvania state government had already fled the city, and Washington would eventually withdraw his army to Valley Forge for the winter. Historians estimate that about one-third of Philadelphia's population, some 12,000 people, had fled the city in advance of the invasion.
The state government, in exile in Lancaster, soon began hearing reports of Pennsylvanians who were actively aiding or joining the British army. In March 1778, the Assembly, with assistance from Chief Justice McKean, passed a law entitled "An Act for the attainder of divers traitors." The law named twelve prominent individuals who had sided with the British and required them to appear for trial by April 20, 1778. If they failed to appear, they would be deemed "convicted and attainted of high treason, to all intents and purposes whatsoever." The Act also authorized the Supreme Executive Council to issue additional proclamations naming persons who had joined the British army. Any such persons who failed to appear for trial would also be attainted of high treason. Although such conditional bills of attainder would soon be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania did not seek primarily to hang people without trials, but to seize promptly the abandoned estates of loyalists who had fled to the British. The law accordingly set forth various procedures for seizing the estates of those persons who failed to report for trial."

Fast forward to today, and if the law (common law) was here today, which it is obviously absent today, then "Antifa" members (joining the invading criminal army of aggressors inciting race war) would be offered a court date.

The "Antifa" members may confess who paid them.

Those who paid the "Antifa" members could be investigated by a common law, independent, grand jury, in any county, or every county (3,131), whereby those members of those grand juries (none of them are government officers, all of them represent the people, not the government) command civil and criminal legal jurisdiction including the power to create a magistrate to serve a subpoena to the accused who is accused of aiding and abetting (paying rioters) enemies foreign or domestic (treason for domestic, aggressive war for profit for foreign) with a court date where the accused can state his case before The People who are represented by the independent, common law, trial jurors.

Now look again here:

"Even in the founding days English loyalists were mocked, attacked and degraded by the Patriots (Antifa)."

That is backward. If the defendant were to make that claim, that the payment of monies to rioters was Patriotic, then the jury members could judge that on a factual basis, comparing that claim with any counter-claims, such as video evidence of the actions of the rioters, or documents describing precisely what the hired rioter must do to get paid by the accused who paid the rioter to riot.

"The status quo versus the new order."

That appears to be the false two choices of evil or a supposedly lesser evil. There are at least two obvious other choices.

1. Evil
2. Lesser Evil
3. Not Evil
4. Even more Not Evil

Pacifism as exemplified in Pennsylvania during the forming of the independent State of Pennsylvania, which is one of the 13 original colonies attacked by the British criminals, causing the America Revolution and the forming of those independent States, along with the forming of the Federation of Independent States that lasted until 1789.

One can argue over which is less NOT evil:

1. Passivism
2. Armed defense based upon facts found lawfully (common law)

To subject oneself to the false two choice offer of false choices is ill-advised by some, some take the bait with vigor, to a point at which they are angry when other people don't also take the bait.

"There has always been thought crime in one form or another."

In the common law a crime is one when someone willfully plans to injure someone innocent, and then follows up with that plan: someone "at war with society," a felon, which is someone who chooses to be outside the law.

Thoughts are not crimes, they are thoughts, as in dreams, sometimes people have unwelcome, foreign, thoughts, such as propaganda, invading their minds, but that is brainwashing, not a "thought crime."

An example of brainwashing is provided by something called Stockholm Syndrom. The crime of brainwashing is added to the crime of kidnapping, as the criminal injects the innocent victim with thoughts that would otherwise be foreign to the kidnapped, brainwashed, victim.

Thought-crime was explained well enough in the novel 1984, and perfected as a science by such infamous criminals as Edward Bernays, Joseph Goebbels, and Joseph Stalin. The criminals who are guilty of willfully injecting their targeted victims with lies ("false advertizements" ) claim that their victims are guilty of a "thought crime" if they resist being subjected to anything the criminals may care to do to them, not limited to torture and murder.

"There has always been thought crime in one form or another."

That appears to me to be a classic case of projection/transference.

The following is an infamous example:

Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

Those in power inject their victims with lies from birth, causing their victims to be compliant victims (see: Stockholm Syndrom and The 6 Purposes of Public Schooling by John Taylor Gatto) while the information fed into the next generation of Aristocrats is of a different type compared to the data fed into the plebian class.

The victim class is dumbed down and does not reflect the "intelligence" or "character" of the criminal class who command dominance over all criminals everywhere. Especially in America, the victim class is more like a herd of cats where the dominant criminal gang (Globalists or now Nationalists) have a more difficult time herding them, compared to, say, a European case of similar despotism.

"Courageous and noble citizens would overthrow their government as a unified entity but they do not because they are too few."

Not when they are fooled into being servile to criminal masters, but eventually the facts washout, and then what happens? One step is to move back from Globalist Dominance to National Dominance, then from National Dominance the American people could move back one more step to an actual Federal association of Independent Nations.

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

The common law in each state, ensured by the Federal powers, which could reject "statehood" on that basis, could help, as it did once upon a time, see the above reference to court cases:THE REVOLUTIONARY AMERICAN JURY: A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779 PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS
Carlton F.W. Larson

Why isn't Killary on trial for treason, public trials, public transcripts? Why isn't Bill Gates offered a court date?

It isn't because Americans are ALL cowards and dishonorable.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners."

Note: "They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners."
Note: "Courageous and noble citizens would overthrow their government as a unified entity but they do not because they are too few."

As a rule or generalization, Americans are INDEPENDENT. That does not mean that there isn't anyone working behind their false flags to subject and fool Americans, to mislead them when possible.

"Courageous and noble citizens would overthrow their government as a unified entity but they do not because they are too few."

So...is that a call for race war? I'd like to know, so I asked.

"The USA has coasted on prosperity for hundreds of years and it's citizens have become weak and dependent. That is the one real truth."

Ah, the monopoly of truths. The USA is a legal fiction, and it (those who run it) has amassed a claim of ownership on a public access Web Page known as The National Debt Real-Time. The people that makeup America include many people who work, even when some are told not to work, told by Treasonous Marxists who infect City, County, State, and Federal branches of government.

"Talk about freedom all you want but it's just 17th century Antifa bullshit. What truly matters is the balance of power that the First and Second Amendment create. It is what allows for the majority to overthrow an empowered minority."

The right to indict (speak out specifid crimes perpetrated by criminals in government) is a natural right, and the First Amendment to the Slave Trade Constitution of 1789 merely documents that natural right, it does not create it. A document does not create a right.

(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721
Notes on Magna Carta
"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”

English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta,
The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes, Henry Care
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721
“Generally all monopolies are against this Great Charter, because they are against the liberty and freedom of the subject, and against the law of the land; and it is hoped that the publication of this opinion of lord Coke’s will induce some person of property and spirit, to try the validity of it, by commencing and carrying on with vigour, a prosecution against some of the many monopolizers that now exist in this kingdom, to the great distress of the poor, and band of industrious merit, and the total subversion of all order and good government.”

Spooner, Trial by Jury:
"That this right of resistance was recognized as a common law right, when the ancient and genuine trial by jury was in force, is not only proved by nature of the trial itself, but is acknowledged by history.*

Hallam says, “The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. * There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects’ swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king’s authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom.” - 3 Middle Ages, 240-2."

First Congress United States of America:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

See a pattern? Government is corrupted by criminals, criminals attack, victims by right and duty acknowledge the fact and Declare their Independence from the corrupted, attacking, government.

Bonding Code:
"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.”

Criminals with fake badges are found out, they are publicly documented as criminals, and the targeted victims declare their independence: Freedom of Speech.

Commercial Lien Right and Military Lien Right:
“In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right.”

No “aristocrat” or “elite” or “government agent” ever gave their victims the right to publicly document the FACT that those criminals are criminals.

The declaration of independence, by right and by duty, ought to be followed up with an INDEPENDENT investigation by the people in grand juries (in each county) to then move to a court date for the felons at war with American society. The worst ones first.

Where is the court date?

Eternal vigilance has always been the battle cry of liberty. The beat goes on.