Of the State of War

Section 16

THE State of War is a State
of Enmity and Destruction

Therefore, declaring by word or action, not passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, he puts him in a state of war with him. 

War against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power that he may take it away, or anyone that joins with him in his defense, and espouses his quarrel.

Reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred.

One may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion. Such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will destroy whoever falls into their power.


Section 17

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, thereby puts himself into a State of War with him which is understood as a Declaration Upon his Life:

I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it.

No one can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, to make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it.

Therefore, he who attempts to enslave me puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to anyone in that state, must be expected to have a design to take away everything else.

Freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he who is in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be expected with intent to take away from them everything else, and so must be looked on as in a state of war.


Section 18

This makes it lawful for a man to Kill a Thief

It is lawful to kill him who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, other than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, to take away his money, or what he pleases.

Because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power by any pretense, I have no reason to suppose that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else.

And therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, and therefore I will kill him if I can. For to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.


Section 19

Here we have the plain difference between the State of Nature and the State of War

Some men have confounded a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation as far distant from each other as a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.

But force, or a declared design of force, upon another person where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war. The want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war, even against an aggressor, though he is in society and a fellow subject.

Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat. The law, made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my defense, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor.

The aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable.

Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.


Section 20

But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society, and are equally on both sides subjected to the fair determination of the law. That lays open the remedy of appeal for the past injury, and to prevent future harm.

But where there is no such appeal is, as in the state of nature, for want of positive laws, and judges with authority to appeal to, the state of war once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can.

Or until the aggressor offers peace, and desires reconciliation on such terms as may repair any wrongs he has already done, and secure the innocent for the future.

Nay, where an appeal to the law, and made up judges, lies open, but the remedy denied by a manifest perverting of justice, and a barefaced wresting of the laws to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men, or party of men, there it is hard to imagine anything but a state of war.

For then, wherever violence and injury are done, by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however coloured with the pretenses or forms of law. Whereas the end being to protect and redress the innocent, by an unbiased application of law and justice, to all who are under it.

Wherever that is not bona fidewar wages upon the sufferers, who have no appeal on earth to right them. The only remedy in such cases is an appeal to heaven.


Section 21

To avoid this state of war (when there is no appeal but to heaven to end every least difference, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature.

For where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power.

Had there been any such court, any superior jurisdiction on earth, to determine the right between Jephtha and the Ammonites, they had never come to a state of war: but we see he was forced to appeal to heaven.


The Lord the Judge says that he will judge this day between the children of [True Israel] and the children of Ammon, Judg. xi.


NOTES from Brutal Truth

Edomite Jews are not
bloodline descendants of Judah


In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9

Yahweh says that there are those claiming to be Jews [True descendants of Patriarch Judah], but are not Jews, and are liars. They are the church of Satan, the synagogue of Satan and are worshippers and followers of him.

And what are they doing today? Conquering the world for the Antichrist to rule from Jerusalem. In every nation, in every major event, the Edomite Jews have been behind it. Although the Edomite Jews dominate Israel today there are a remnant of real bloodline Judeans there as well. These are the ones the Lord will protect during the Great Tribulation.


Section 27

And then prosecuting, and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore, in such controversies, The question is asked, who shall be judge? It cannot mean, who shall decide the controversy; everyone knows what Jephtha here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven.

That question then cannot mean, who shall judge,
whether another hath put himself in a state of war with me,
and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to heaven?

Of that, I myself can only be judge in my own conscience,
as I will answer it, at the great day, to the supreme judge of all men.




Of the State of War



John Locke (1632–1704), wrote two treatises on government published in London: Printed for R. Butler, etc., 1821.

Book II, Of Civil Government, and Chapter III, Of the State of War.

Their language then is rather antiquated and crowded today. Without doing harm to John Locke's great work, Of the State of War, RogueOps carefully brought some of the awkward language into the present on minimal occasion, with a little less formal vernacular for easier reading.


When John Locke wrote this in the mid- 1600s, and when our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution with which they held John Locke in great esteem, the term “man or men” never included nonwhites.

Such an idea was never a thought or even considered. Man It is a biblical term that derives from and means Adam. It derives from Adam’s unique white and ruddy red complexion that is unique only to the Adamic Aryan Adam 'Man.'

Wo-Man means "from Adam," the woman with the identical unique white and ruddy red complexion, to show blood in the face, the ability to blush, that no other people on earth have. No one!

Aryan Man never identifies nonwhites as “man or men.”  We identify them by their ‘racial’ names such as Negroid, or Asian. Or from their origins such as ‘Nigerian” or ‘Mongols’ etcetera.

Man or Men refer only to White ruddy red Adamic Aryans, the men who conceived, founded engineered and built White Aryan Western Civilization.

Throughout our history, ‘A Call to Arms’ was never an idle act! We are the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Scandinavian and Nordic peoples. We are the Greatest Warriors, Culture and Civilization builders in earth's history. The men and women of valor and courage who also conceived, engineered and built our crowning glory, America, from hostile wilderness.

No nonwhite race can make those claims!
Not one!