Understanding the Dirrerence: J6 vs. Seditious 6
Both terms refer to insurrection and sedition, but they are very different in fact & context...
Prescott, AZ, November 30, 2025…
These are strange times we live in; while we value and promote free speech, some consequences accompany the words that come from our mouths. After eight years of political persecution by the left through abuse of powers in all three branches of government, now the Marxist insurgency known as the Democratic Party wants to play the “they're persecuting me card.” Yup, that is what Sen. Mark Kelly claims after participating in a grand charade.
Both terms, J6, referring to the so-called “fed-surection” riot of 2021, and Seditious 6, referring to the 6 retired service members who thought it would be cute to put out a false flag PSYOP message aimed at the active duty military members, implying that the Commander in Chief was issuing “illegal orders,” have been in the news. But what is the difference between the two actions? And for its part, the mockingbird, legacy media relishes in hyperbole.
Nomenclature is important here. Sedition is the crime of inciting discontent, resistance, or rebellion against the established government or its authority, typically through speech, writing, or organized action, without necessarily amounting to full treason or overt violence. Treason is a very different crime with a very different standard. Do you see what I just did with that statement? Ruminate on it to the end of this missive.
U.S. federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2384 – Seditious Conspiracy): The closest modern U.S. statute to classic sedition. It prohibits two or more persons conspiring to:
overthrow, put down, or destroy the U.S. government by force;
oppose by force the authority of the government;
prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any U.S. law by force; or
seize or possess U.S. property contrary to its authority by force. Penalty: up to 20 years in prison.
Historical U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 (expired/repealed): Made it illegal to use disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the U.S. government, flag, or armed forces during World War I. Largely struck down or allowed to expire because of First Amendment conflicts.
Common-law and the traditional definition (still used in many countries): Any act or speech that:
brings the government or its officials into hatred or contempt,
excites disaffection against the government,
promotes disobedience to the law, or
encourages people to resist lawful authority.
In the United States, pure “sedition” statutes that punish speech alone are mostly unconstitutional under the First Amendment (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)1). Speech must advocate imminent lawless action and be likely to produce it to lose protection.
In short, in quasi-democratic and democratic countries with strong free-speech protections, sedition laws that target mere criticism are usually unenforceable or repealed. Where they remain on the books (or are replaced by “seditious conspiracy” statutes), they require some element of force, conspiracy, or incitement to violence or disobedience with lawful orders rather than just harsh words.
What does “going too far” look like?
The ring leader of the Seditious 6 appears to be Senator Mark Kelly (AZ). Kelly, who was elected in what most would assert was an irredeemably compromised election in 2020. While extreme-radical Marxist publications like The Atlantic believe Kelly is in the wrong job2, and should be SECWAR, his irresponsible language, which is unbecoming of a Senator, says otherwise.
Kelly put out an X message, not to the American people writ large, but targeting service members and active-duty military personnel, admonishing them not to follow “illegal orders.” But there are two problems: 1) he uses an inflammatory term to accomplish a purpose. Article 92, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 892) – “Failure to obey order or regulation,” Paragraph (2) explicitly states that a member is not required to obey an unlawful order, and disobedience of an unlawful order is not an offense. 2) Our service members already know, and in fact are specifically trained up on the duty to not follow unlawful orders.
On November 18th, Kelly said, “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.” (Repeated by the group: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution.”)
On November 20th, Kelly said, “Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders... Every American must unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence.”
On November 21st, Kelly said, “Donald Trump may be surrounding himself with yes men and firing admirals and generals he doesn’t like, but he can’t fire us. We aren’t going anywhere, and we will ALWAYS defend the Constitution and the rule of law.”
On November 25th, Kelly said, “With this president, it’s clear this isn’t about the law. It’s about headlines and intimidation. I’m not going to let that happen.”
Then on November 26th, Kelly said, “I’m not backing down... The oath our servicemembers take is to the Constitution, not to a person.” (Referred to Trump’s response as “kill them.”)
Kelly has consistently described his position as “non-controversial,” aligning with established military doctrine that prioritizes the Constitution and lawful orders. But there is the PSYOP, his statements by their very design to be controversial and to undermine the Commander-in-Chief.
Bill O’Reilly, a nationally syndicated voice commenting on the charade, said, “Kelly’s irresponsible involvement in the Democrats’ political stunt was purely motivated by partisan affiliation. “If you’re a responsible legislator, you don’t make things up,” O’Reilly also said. “So if you don’t have an illegal order, then why are you talking about an illegal order? For what? What is the reason? There’s only one, to embarrass Trump. To whip up hatred against Trump. That’s why they did it. I guess they didn’t have anything else to do on Monday.”3
In interviews, he argues the video supports service members facing potential ethical dilemmas, not subverts command. Critics, including Trump allies, frame it as seditious, but supporters (e.g., Democrats and veterans’ groups) view it as a necessary check on executive overreach. But wait, there has been no overreach, so by definition, this is an ad hominem attack without cause.
