Socialists Against Socialism

The national Socialist Left’s ongoing efforts to absolve themselves of their parasitic ideology’s past crimes against humanities has created many a contradiction to the point that they should seemingly be against their own agenda.

It would seem like we dreadfully misjudged the socialists over the many centuries they’ve been around. According to at least some socialist factions, they are against big government socialism.

Now, perhaps this is just another way of claiming failed socialist regimes of the past weren’t actually socialist, but that denial of reality places them in quite the quandary. For if they truly are against past government control of the economy, then it would stand to reason that they should be against the same in the future.

In other words, they can either be against big government or be absolved of socialism crimes against humanity….. BUT NOT BOTH. Consider this graphic from our comrades of the Official Socialist Party of Great Britain [SPGB]:

Instead of a group of government people owning and controlling the means of production, they want a group of people owning and controlling the means of production… or something.

Or Consider this video: Socialism in 5 Minutes

From Socialism Explained

Partial transcript:

“So what is socialism if we’re doing like the dictionary definition its defined as a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production distribution is exchanged be able to regulate it by the community as a whole”
[..]
But wait you may think doesn’t that mean Big Brother government comes in well short answer NO, long answer NO
[..]
Bonus round here’s what socialism is not libraries, public health care free tuition these are not socialism

Luminaries of the Left such as R.D. Wolf have made it abundantly clear that true socialism can only be when the people own and control the means of production, but not when those people are a government..

If you are a true masochist, there is this video: Socialism For Dummies.

Contrast these obfuscations with the partial Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the term Socialism:

a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Therefore, in trying to deny their blood-soaked past, socialists are advocating the exact opposite of what they profess. Hence the slogan: Socialists against Socialism.

It should also follow that said Socialists should be against the government take-over with National Socialized Healthcare.

So, this places the nation’s socialist in a severe dilemma – oppose the nationalization of ‘the means of production’, which would include Obamacare and single payer.

Or, be permanently affixed to the mass murderer and oppression of their collectivist brethren.

Either they use this ruse and work against national Socialized Healthcare and other socialist schemes….

…Or they have to admit that socialist regimes of the past were actually Socialist.
P.S. I must add the proviso that the websites of the Official Socialist Party of Great Britain [SPGB] could merely be a parody site with some of the items they’ve posted.

GOP: You have no other choice than to repeal Obamacare

Every other option is a trap you are setting for yourself.

1. The GOP will be responsible for what ever happens to healthcare from now on. The media will hammer this point day and night.
2. Without a repeal, the midterms will be a blood bath.
Anything short of what you promised for 7 years will see Republicans staying home. While midterms in this situation are usually bad, it will be compounded by leftists out for revenge and the right failing to see a reason to vote GOP without a repeal.

3. When RINOcare inevitably collapses as intended and with the loss of Congress the Left will take this as grand opportunity to force national socialist healthcare upon the people as the only alternative.

Therefore, you have no other choice than to at least repeal Obamacare and set the country on a path towards free-market reforms. These will work far better than the left’s ultimate goal of national socialized healthcare and economic slavery.

It should be clear to those with even the hardest mindset that repeal of Obamacare is the only choice. It was solemnly promised by the party for 7 long years. It should also be clear that it was only meant to fail and be a precursor to national socialized healthcare. The voters were told time and time again that the party needed all three branches of the government under control, and they delivered. Now is the time for the GOP to fulfill it’s end of the bargain.

There will be no reason to support the party any longer if it cannot accomplish this one task set before it. If you cannot fulfill this promise it will signal the end of the party and the birth of another.

Video: Make Mine Freedom (1948) – A warning of the economic slavery of the ‘Isms’

The first of the 4 Stages of Socialist* Failure is of course promises of freebies to be taken from others. This video from 1948 points that out, and that one must give up their freedom to get ‘other people’s money’.
It also uses the term ‘Ism’ to describe these ideologies, so one could surmise that back after the second world war, they didn’t bother to try and separate the various collectivist ‘miracle cures’.

H/T AnimationStation.

The 4 Stages of Socialist* Failure
1. Socialists* promise free stuff.
2. Socialists* gain control based on these promises.
3. Socialists* use force and falsehoods when these promises cannot be fulfilled.
4. When it inevitably fails, Socialists* parrot the ‘it wasn’t really Socialism** lie’ and start over with promises for free stuff with a new name.

*[or a synonym of thereof] Bolshevists, Castroists, Chavistas, Communists, Collectivists, Democratic Socialists, Fabianists, Fascists, Leftists, Leninists, Maoists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, National Socialists, Progressives, Project X advocates, Rule of the proletariat advocates, Social justice warriors, Stalinists, Statists, State ownership advocates, Totalitarianists, Trotskyists, Utopian Socialists, etc. etc.

** Or one of the multitude of synonyms for essentially the same concept.

Why The National Socialist Left Is Losing

We are witnessing in the machinations of CNN the self-immolation of the nation’s Left. Were it not for it’s domination of media, culture and indoctrination establishments, the national Socialist Left would be a minor third party of no importance to the political scene.

Cultural Marxists have tried to dictate that certain word parings are verboten. This is because they evoke certain historic facts they would like everyone to forget. As is their usual projective modus operandi the Left tries to cast their tactics on it’s opposition with accusations of historical revision.
The fact is the Oxford English dictionary defines the term national:

Relating to or characteristic of a nation; common to a whole nation

Presumably this is acceptable when referring to a national sports franchise, but not a national political movement of the Socialist-Left.

Although it is supremely ironic that those that denounce certain word parings culturally speaking, those who would fall under the rubric of the term NAZI as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary:

“one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person”

Alas, our evisceration of their ongoing attempts history revision will have to wait for another day.

Recent events have brought forth some thoughts with regard to the age-old issue of ‘media bias’.  Does anyone even remember that quaint old term back from the days of yore when the Socialist Media, at least tried to hide their party preferences? There was a reason people used to refer to CNN as the ‘Communist News Network’, given their current ideological preferences it’s no wonder they don’t decorate their sets in a Red hammer & sickle motif, complete with a copy of Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia”.

Does the National Socialist Media even try to pull off that deception any more? Or it is a case where it’s so blatantly biased toward the Left (if not the far Left) that anyone attempting to foist that lie in the public sphere is laughed off the stage?

Bill whittle had some fascinating points on this issue in his latest video on a recurring point – that Media bias accounts for approximately 10 – 15 polling percentages:

THE TRUTH vs CNN

Were the national socialist left to be lacking in their domination of the media, culture and the government indoctrination system they would be nothing but an also ran party with little significance. A shrunken vestige of a former national party that now only has ageing hippies at the helm that merely regurgitate 500-year-old ideas.

In many ways the self-immolation of the national Socialist Left is quite amusing and it brings hope that the vile ideology of socialism is seeing it’s last days as a viable political system. Much like a black hole collapsing in on itself, the machinations of the national Socialist Left will only serve to hasten it’s demise. For it will only panic further when it realizes that it’s old tactics no longer function.

Hopefully speaking, the outcome of all these trials and tribulations will see the emergence of 3 main ‘wings’ of the political spectrum. Most of which will consist of the Right, Liberal and finally the far..far.. left. The first two will compete in the arena of the role of limited governance as it should be, with respectful contentions over the important issues instead of the nonsensical cultural Marxism agenda.

The Conservative-Right will be where it’s always been, while the Liberal wing will be borne of the ashes of today’s national socialist left

Parenthetically speaking, there will always be a role for an insignificant national far left – socialist party merely as a public reminder of the danger of the collectivist mindset. Consequently, whenever someone new begins making promises for vote-buying handouts we can all point the originators of the scheme and quickly dismiss such outdated ideas from long ago. They can also serve as a reminder that while it’s self-identification has changed many times over the centuries, it’s basic notions have remained the same: Promise freebies looted from others, seize control and use terror (revolutionary and otherwise) to maintain control over the people.

 

#CharlieGard and the danger of national Socialized Medicine

In many ways one has to marvel at how events tend to play out. Just as we in the states are to decide the fate of national Socialized Medicine the case of Charlie Gard across the Atlantic has cropped up illustrating it’s extreme danger to humanity at large. We are at a crossroads where we can reject the vestiges of Socialism and hopefully see it fade into the deeps of history or we can give it a lifeline that will have far reaching implications for the future of the nation.

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana

For various reasons we don’t usually directly comment on current events. However, the case of Charlie Gard warrants an exception to that precept since time is critical in two major respects. The child referenced is under a literal death sentence from the cause of national Socialized Medicine. Meanwhile, we in the states are on the brink of a decision to throw a lifeline to Obamacare implosion or scrap it and start over.

Recently The Glen Beck program had a great discussion on the dangerous ramifications of the Charlie Gard caseUK Death Panel Rules Baby Should ‘Die With Dignity,’ History Teaches Brutal Lesson of What Comes Next

Believe it or not, this isn’t the first time in history this issue has come up — and the first time, things didn’t go well at all.

“If you can’t justify yourself, if you can’t say, I will, I will produce more than I eat, you’re just a useless eater, and that hurts all of Germany,” Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

“Baby Knauer was the first baby and the first victim of the Holocaust. It started with compassion. It started exactly the way it’s starting now in the West, in England. And if we don’t know history on this particular case, we will be destined to repeat it.”

No doubt the nation’s Socialist left will have conniptions over the comparison of that actions one Socialist Worker’s party with the actions of another of a similar ideology. Never the less, it does bear witness to how the degradation of life can lead to serious consequences. And it raises the very important question of why anyone would care to implement such a system. However, the Media doesn’t even want to address the issue, much less consider it’s long term implications.

And before the Left’s loses it’s collective mind over the temerity of comparing historical events, let us replay the actual words of one George Bernard Shaw: Justify Your Existence:

 

His First Life Ministry
From The soviet story. [Documentary footage]. Brussels, Belgium. Snore, E. (Author/director). (2008).

It’s is only logical that when one’s opposition is desirous of certain acts, one should avoid that action since they will not have one’s best interests at heart. Such is the case with the Slate article: The Right Is Turning the Charlie Gard Tragedy into a Case Against Single-Payer Health Care. It’s the Opposite.

Sidenote: The national Socialist media’s usual tactic is to construct it’s headline as a one line editorial for those who don’t read the attached article. As is also typical, the article spends a great deal of time discussing the case and condemning the Right for daring to bring up this glaring example of the danger of their socialist national agenda while neglecting the point raised in the headline. It’s only towards the end of the piece and long after the point that most people would read that the author tries to make the rather weak pleading mentioned way up in the headline that everyone would have read.

She bases her assertions on the dubious contention that “Trumpcare Will Probably Kill Thousands Each Year, And it is neither alarmist nor uncivil to say so.” [Another Slate article – is everyone detecting the trend here?] Oddly enough, neither piece mentioned the cuts to the National Health Service that will have an adverse effect on 23 Million people – this with the left’s ideal of a national socialist health care system.

Hysterics aside, the essential contention is that better one child die than thousands. Well, this is not a foregone conclusion by any means – hence the ’Probably’ in the headline of the Slate piece. That the left is warning us off this issue should be a red flag that this is their Achilles’ heel in the matter. Besides, shouldn’t everyone keep that George Santayana quote in mind? [And it is neither alarmist nor uncivil to say so. – to borrow a phrase]

The fact is, government run health care systems are imploding everywhere with skyrocketing costs and severely reduced care. And the question becomes, what will happen to the people when these systems inevitably collapse? How many people will die when Obamacare or the National Health Service implodes? Shouldn’t we take these hard questions into account instead of the hysterical polemics of the national socialist left?

It would be far better to see the Charlie Gard case as warning to us all and make the correct choice in the healthcare debate. Just as it would be to take into account what truly works in the real world outside the echo chamber of the Left. Merely prolonging the legacy of Obamacare will only usher in a far worse alternative – national socialized medicine – an alternative that is a disaster in the making.

The 4 Stages of Socialist* Failure

1. Socialists* promise free stuff.
2. Socialists* gain control based on these promises.
3. Socialists* use force and falsehoods when these promises cannot be fulfilled.
4. When it inevitably fails, Socialists* parrot the ‘it wasn’t really Socialism** lie’ and start over with promises for free stuff with a new name.

*[or a synonym of thereof] Bolshevists, Castroists, Chavistas, Communists, Collectivists, Democratic Socialists, Fabianists, Fascists, Leftists, Leninists, Maoists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, National Socialists, Progressives, Project X advocates, Rule of the proletariat advocates, Social justice warriors, Stalinists, Statists, State ownership advocates, Totalitarianists, Trotskyists, Utopian Socialists, etc. etc.

** Or one of the multitude of synonyms for essentially the same concept.

1. Socialists* promise free stuff

Socialists* have no qualms about promising other people’s money and property in order to buy votes and loyalty. In their quest to attain power over the people they will reverse reality, such that it is ‘greedy’ to keep one’s hard earned money but ‘liberal’ to steal it from someone else.

They will couch these promises in flowery terms of income equality or ‘Social Justice’ to provide a thin veneer of morality to outright theft at the point of a gun. Oftentimes these assurances will have the underlying implications of free stuff, but worded so that it is a somehow a noble gesture to receive stolen goods.

These assurances of wealth transfers to those who support the Socialists* can be in general form or specific goodies to be handed out – but only when couched in altruistic terminology. This is so the potential recipients of such largess can still think of themselves as merely contributing to the common good while getting freebies, free healthcare or free higher education are prime examples.

Those in favour of such theft through the proxy of a big and wonderful socialist government would like to think of themselves righting past wrongs most have never experienced. Far better that a small business owner has her property stolen and fund their 6 year degree in cis-transgender studies than said owner expand her business and create more jobs. Somehow their theft is all for the ‘greater good’ of everyone else because they get to decide that it’s more important to have such experts than employment for the people.

2. Socialists* gain control based on these promises.

This is either done through evolutionary means, the incremental take-over of government by socialists* who quite often deny they are Socialists*. This is the “One man [or woman], One Vote, ONCE process. Whereby the Socialists* promise loot in exchange for loyalty and votes, attain power and never yield it until their system fails yet again. While advertised as ‘democratic’ it exhibits the worst aspects of this concept of the majority victimizing the minority. For there will always be many those of a lower station will to roll the dice on Socialism** than those unwilling to have their wealth ‘redistributed’. In essence, this is a formalized Mob rule with the ballot box and elections replacing the torch and the pitchfork.

Then there are the revolutionary means by which a small but armed minority seizes power and promptly disarms the populace so the reverse doesn’t take place. Soon after, all will be good in a “Worker’s Paradise with only minor necessity of the oppression of the populace and a few million die by firing squad or forced starvation.

This stage will also see the beginnings of the socialist* putting in place the means by which they will keep a tight grip on power to the exclusion of democracy.

There will be various types of ‘social’ programs that will ostensibly help the poor, but only set them on a path of permanent dependency. One only has to examine the results of their “Great Society” to see how much the Socialists* care about holding onto power than caring about people.

In many cases, they will also set up government bureaucracies meant to oppress any opposition to the socialist national agenda. This ranges from secret police agencies in the use of existing services such as the IRS to tamp down those the opposition.

The Socialists* will also continually press for the registration and confiscation of the people’s means of Self-Defense to the point of obsession. For it is well nigh impossible to forcibly take from some according to their ability when people can resist said force.

3. Socialists* resort to lies and force when these promises cannot be fulfilled.

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Karl Marx

The blunt fact is that the basic precepts of Socialism** are contrary to the psychological principle of Operant Conditioning:

“Behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e. strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished (i.e. weakened).”

Thus when people are punished for being productive [From each according to their abilities] and rewarded for sloth [To each according to their abilities] the system breaks down. When the hard earned money of the productive is stolen from them, it discourages productive behaviour. Conversely, when the unproductive receive unearned monetary rewards they are encouraged to continue this behaviour.

We are told by the Socialists* to ignore this basic psychological concept with various convenient rationalizations. The problem for them is the fact that this principle had shown it’s practical effects over centuries of evidence. Of course, this isn’t the first reality defying progress prognostication, and it won’t be the last, and it doesn’t matter how many times such falsehoods are repeated.

If people are punished for working they will work less, if people are rewarded for indolence they will be indolent. This took place with the experimentation with socialism in the first permanent settlements in the Americas centuries ago and it’s taking place in Socialist* nations at present.

Thus various forms of force have to be utilized by the socialists* to keep them in power. These range from the use of ‘revolutionary terror’ or ‘Red Terror’ to suppress dissent. To Leftists in the states losing their ever loving minds over the people having the temerity to vote them out of their birthright to power.

4. When it inevitably fails, Socialists* parrot the ‘it wasn’t really Socialism** lie’ and start over with promises for free stuff with a new name.

It is inevitable that over time a Socialist* system will break down and fail despite the repression unleashed on the people and a high body count. In many regimes with totalitarian tendencies, the situation will become so dire that the people will rise up and remove the Socialists* from power. In others the Socialists* will be voted out of office.

Of course, were the Socialists* truly concerned about the fate of their subjects, they would examine where they went wrong and try something different. They could reject their base ideology and turn to something that works, but there are some so imbued with attaining power this way they have no other ideology.

Since they cannot abandon their centuries old ideology, they have to recast it as something else with a new label. Such explains the plethora of labels for essentially the same concept. With socialism** a known failure, they just called it communism,* when that failed to work as advertised, they called it Democratic socialism** over and over again.

The dilemma for the Socialists* then becomes one of explaining away the centuries of repeated failure of their base ideology. To which they utilized the basic expedient of lying about why it failed.

These range from the “no true Scotsman’s” fallacy of claiming that socialist* systems of the past weren’t actually socialist or claiming that those past failures fell under another convenient rubric.

The use of the dictionary oxymoron “State Capitalism” is one of their favourites. With that little ditty they can cast their socialist* brethren as something else, with the implication that it is the opposite of what they are. They can use that little turn of phrase to advocate socialism as the practical alternative to ‘capitalism’.

At some point the people have to wake up to this repeated deception and recognize the lies being told to them, hence the purpose of this dissertation. It’s main purpose is to identify the Socialist* scam by it’s characteristics instead of the labels used by it’s purveyors. People should question the basic premise of Socialism and why is has failed time and time again over the centuries. They should question why the left keeps on calling by different names and why they cannot be honest about those repeated failures, not to mention it’s blood soaked history of oppression and mass murder. They should question why the left cannot answer the question socialism** being imposed at the point of a gun.

There is an old saying that “if something is too good to be true, it probably isn’t.” Such is the case with Socialism or it’s many synonyms.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Our Emphasis]