Running Out of Options

“The Endarkenment.”  Aware individuals will recognize what this term means, if you do not, go and run that term through the search feature at Billy Beck’s blog Two—Four, as an educational exercise.

How are freedom loving individuals supposed to break the strangle hold “The Endarkenment” currently has on America and the West?  Many ideas get kicked around.  The Tea Party movement has some traction, but their modus operandi is the vote, and I agree with Billy Beck’s statement “There will be no voting our way out of this,...,” as articulated in this post.

Many other organizations and entities also fall back on and support the vote option, even as the disastrous effects of voting daily layer on additional chains restricting freedom and boldly strike Americans in the face with impunity.  Voting is a failure.  Slaves Cannot Vote Themselves Free.

As anger against the State continues percolating, talk is heard of revolution, a drastic resort to restore freedom indeed, but as American Mercenary (AM) notes in this post, which constructively critcizes this Mike Vanderboegh post, the revolution, well…

The revolution has not come, nor will it.

Within that AM post, coup thoughts are also addressed, and voting is also acknowledged as having brought America to its current predicament.

The present state of the United States has come about by our own choices, we have no one to rebel against. We have no enemy to fight. A Coup will only work if we destroy the rule of law, and if we destroy the rule of law, we will not be the United States.

AM is correct that Americans have brought their travails upon themselves, through the vote, and also recognizes the inherent dangers of counting coup, thus these options hold no real value or reasonability.

AM delves into another vein of thought, or option, to restore freedom, in a post titled Guerilla or Insurgents?,  but this thought, also, AM finds lacking in reality.

I am convinced that we who are prepared are like Don Quixote charging windmills. We fight giants in our mind whilst riding with other fools who support our delusions.

I tend to agree.

What other options are then open to American individuals desiring to restore freedom to America?  Western Rifle Shooters Association points readers to a Restore The Constitution post titled RTC blog’s discussion of vitriolage (acid attack) picked up by Global Guerrilas, which was preceded by a Restore The Constitution post titled The Sulphuric Acid attack – Incidents on the rise worldwide, but not too many in the US.  Acid attacks.  Jesus, I cannot think of a more underhanded option as an alleged vehicle for restoring freedom.

Well, is it “Too Late for a Political Solution?”  Unfortunately, I think it is, as I intimated above.  America, the West, the world, will sink into “The Endarkenment.”  Total and complete Endarkenment will occur slowly, at times, at other times it will accelerate with an uncomprehending speed until complete ruin is brought upon ourselves.

Are there any real options left to freedom loving individuals, then, which could, relatively peacefully, delegitimize the State and unite those who value freedom?  I see only one option, and it is an option articulated by Billy Beck.  It’s Massive, Passive, Civil Disobedience Now, or Armed Civil War.

Massive, passive, civil disobedience; informed withdrawl of support for the State; is possible, though challenging, due to the alleged private sector’s bribed collusion with the State.  But even this option leaves me forlorn, as the majority of individuals, here in America and throughout the world, are ignorantly and blissfully content to allow the final curtain to be drawn on what was previously an enlightened attempt to raise man to a higher plane of freedom.  We’re running out of options.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/26 at 08:41 AM

  1. John:

    Why wouldn’t tyrants simply respond to massive civil disobedience with mass arrests/“trials”/incarcerations, while seizing and executing known opfor leaders preemptively?

    What if the rule of law is already dead?

    Soviet Russia had, and the PRC has,
    - elections,
    - a rubberstamp legislative apparatus, and
    - an iron-handed control over state media.

    What would Solzhenitsyn say to us?

    Posted by concerned american  on  06/26  at  11:46 PM

  2. I believe John is correct. The STATE would kill or incarcerate the passive rebels.
    I’ve seen this movie and it doesn’t end well.
    Good Luck all!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/27  at  09:56 AM

  3. What would Solzhenitsyn say to us?

    This.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/27  at  10:54 AM

  4. As the author of Restore the Constitution’s posts about sulphuric acid as a weapon, I’ve seen a lot of “Oh, no, we can’t go there” kind of responses, but not as many answers to the questions I raised as I would have hoped for.  Questions such as:

    1)
    Now comparing Sulfuric acid to firearms, let’s look at two hypothetical intimidation statements below and compare them:

    #1 “If you try and take my guns, I will shoot you” (we’ve all heard variations on this one)

    and

    #2 “If you try and take my guns, maybe you’ll get them and maybe you wont. I won’t risk my life then and there to stop you.  But if you do manage to get any of my guns, I promise you that I will track you down afterwards and I WILL throw Sulphuric acid in your face.”

    Which statement is more likely to give a would-be gun grabber pause?

    or

    2)And what if you want to make a “clean” (lol) kill but lack the tools because they’ve been taken from you?

    or

    3)Anyway, and more importantly, has anyone noticed that the “cold dead hands” threat did not stop gun confiscation in NOLA after Katrina? 

    4)  (to the old “cold dead hands” threat) ..And what about all those folks who are ordered to surrender their weapons following the mere accusation of domestic violence?  And now we have folks in Maryland getting arrested for filming police officers, and, –you guessed it—, ordered to surrender their firearms pre-trial!  How’s that “cold dead hands” thing working out lately?


    The bottom line is that “cold dead hands” has failed miserably as an effective deterrent.

    Posted by Daniel Almond  on  06/27  at  11:20 AM

  5. The British National Party has failed to stop people from voting for more government.

    Everywhere we look around the globe people are being sold a bill of goods in the form of the socialist vision, and they are buying it.

    Note that the BNP, the TeaParty, even the Republicans, are all branded “racist”.  Everybody says it, so it must be true.  We spend so much of our energy proving that we aren’t racist that we fail to get our message out.

    Marx and Engels really knew how to win the media war.  On our side we have what?  Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater?  Outside of conservative circles our deep thinkers are decried as shallow, even our founding fathers smeared with the “slave owning white men” epithet.

    We’ve lost the fight already.  The checkmate may be twenty moves ahead, but it is there, and it is inevitable.

    Posted by AM  on  06/27  at  04:31 PM

  6. Accepting that this ride is going all the way to the end, I’ve been thinking about ways to make the trip more bearable and increasing the odds that me and mine will live through it.

    Beyond prayer, the best I’ve been able to devise is to try and move someplace with a better concentration of freedom-loving people. The Free State Project was begun with the aim of voting libertarian types into power.  I’m not interested in that game, but I am interested in living alongside liberty-loving types.  Things will be more bearable in places where the concentration of state supporters is lower and people will be less likely to turn on one another. When things collapse, independent folks will be better equipped to see to their own health and safety. 

    Texas? Nevada? New Hampshire? There are a few places where this might be the case.

    It’s still a bloody shame to see it happening here, but being a witness is preferable to being a victim.

    Posted by Shamus  on  06/28  at  01:47 AM

  7. The bottom line is that “cold dead hands” has failed miserably as an effective deterrent.

    Daniel,

    One could remove the words “cold dead hands” from your statement, substitute in the words “throw Sulphuric acid in your face,” or any such combination of words implying a threat of retailiation against the State for egregious action against free individuals, and the fact would remain that all have “failed miserably as an effective deterrrent.”

    These type of statements have about as much weight as a UN sanction against Iran, and your “I WILL throw Sulphuric acid in your face” has all the bluster of a Kim Jong-il soundbite.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/28  at  06:44 AM

  8. I was comparing the two statements, not suggesting that “acid” was a completely effective threat on its own, but simply that it sounded more believable than “dead hands.”  Are you familiar with deBecker’s ‘“JACA” method of threat prediction and why I’ve suggested acid retailiation might be more effective than cold dead hands.

    Anyway, to Kim Jong-il:  We can call him whatever we want and make fun of him for making wild statements and threats, BUT, he’s maintained his grip on power AND aquired nuclear weapons right under our noses.  There is most definitely a method to his madness, and it is naiive to dismiss effective strategies, particularly propaganda and information strategies, as “just crazy.”

    Remember, I started the Restore the Constitution blog to promote the Restore the Constitution open carry rally on the banks of the Potomac.  It was a success, widely covered by national media, despite the naysayers’ predictions of disaster.  Now the armed rally movement is picking up steam with two armed “Restore” rallies scheduled for this August in NC and NM.  However, at least one of ours was harassed by criminal gang elements acting as “law enforcement” and had his gun stolen by them while enroute from the 4-19 armed rally. I’d rather not worry about gun confiscation, and I’d rather not have to consider deterrent measures, but that’s not the world we live in.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/28  at  07:59 AM

  9. John:

    Do you think it is significant that Solzhenitsyn did NOT say “during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up a series of mass civil disobedience events?”

    The validity of the statement “deterrence has failed completely” (with which I agree completely) depends upon the definition of “deterrence”.

    As a submariner, you are familiar with the meaning of deterrence as potentially manifested by SLBMs, no?

    Wasn’t at least one of the planned uses of the SLBM leg of the triad as a countervalue tool of retaliatory nuclear mass murder against Soviet women, children, and other non-combatants, especially before the accuracy of SLBMs was improved?

    And even though such actions were merely threatened, is there any doubt in your mind that if the NCA had ordered the boats to fire their SLBMs, they would have launched them?

    The fact is that freedom-loving people in this country have, to date, done absolutely nothing in terms of either counterforce or countervalue retaliation against the forces who are incrementally enslaving them.

    That unwillingness to act is the failure, not any inherent inadequacy in the particular tactic under discussion.

    The only way to determine the effect of any retaliatory action as a deterrent against future bad acts is to actually test the tactic and honestly account for the subsequent events.

    The fact remains that inaction (or alternatively, only ineffectual action) by freedom-lovers will lead to ever more egregious action by Leviathan.

    Boot, face, forever.

    Posted by concerned american  on  06/28  at  08:51 AM

  10. I was comparing the two statements, not suggesting that “acid” was a completely effective threat on its own, but simply that it sounded more believable than “dead hands.”  Are you familiar with deBecker’s ‘“JACA” method of threat prediction and why I’ve suggested acid retailiation might be more effective than cold dead hands.

    Daniel, I have not read De Becker’s book, but I did read your post (June 12) referencing De Becker.  My point was that I do not think either, “threat” is effective, as they lack mass appeal.  Both threats may have effectiveness on an indidivual case by case basis, but neither will have mass meme appeal and thus they fail as rallying ideas.

    Anyway, to Kim Jong-il:  We can call him whatever we want and make fun of him for making wild statements and threats, BUT, he’s maintained his grip on power AND aquired nuclear weapons right under our noses.  There is most definitely a method to his madness, and it is naiive to dismiss effective strategies, particularly propaganda and information strategies, as “just crazy.”

    Kim Jong-il’s grip on power is not maintained via threats, but active utilization of force.  “Is that a threat or a promise,” my father would ask me when I threatened some action, and Jong-il’s power, within NK, is based on the promise that he will kill, or bring low, those who defy him, not the threat.

    As to NK’s acquisition of nukes “under our noses,” I don’t think the nukes were acquired under our noses, but rather via naive assumptions of world governments that in allowing Jong-il to do this, he won’t do that.

    Remember, I started the Restore the Constitution blog to promote the Restore the Constitution open carry rally on the banks of the Potomac.  It was a success, widely covered by national media, despite the naysayers’ predictions of disaster.  Now the armed rally movement is picking up steam with two armed “Restore” rallies scheduled for this August in NC and NM.

    I’m pleased that RTC has achieved some measure of success in disseminating the idea of the threat the State is to freedom, and the State’s disregard for the Constitution, and I hope the upcoming rallies also receive widespread MSM coverage for their possible deterrent value, but more importantly, as an exhortation for individuals to actively claim their inalienable right to freedom.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/28  at  09:19 AM

  11. C.A.—Solzhenitsyn was dealing in a culture that had never known a period of Enlightenment.  Russia cruised directly from medieval styled despotism to industrial-aged totalitarianism.  That country had never ever known a time of ethical standards like private property or anything remotely associated with individualism.

    This is why an appeal through mass civil-disobedience would never have worked against Stalin: he simply had no conscience to which to appeal with Enlightenment values.

    Now, this is why that example is complete inept when addressing the American straits, now.  It’s an apples and oranges comparison.  The question to be *seriously* taken up, is how much of an *American* conscience remains to be appealed to, and how best to craft that argument.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  06/28  at  01:17 PM

  12. CA,

    Because Billy provided informed criticism on the initial portion of your comment, with which I can find no fault, I will not address your what if.

    The only way to determine the effect of any retaliatory action as a deterrent against future bad acts is to actually test the tactic and honestly account for the subsequent events.

    Your statement regarding judging the effectiveness of a particular deterrence is correct.  Once again, though, I must state that the effectiveness of a particular deterrent threat, in this case a violent threat, can only be judged on an indidivual case by case basis, and, violent deterrent threats uttered by individuals lack mass meme appeal and thus they fail as rallying ideas.

    I think that the majority of American individuals are not violence oriented.  Rather, American individuals, having embraced many of the tenets of the enlightment which have come down to us (granted - many are misguided and twisted by the immorality of politics and accepted rather than rejected for the utopian flights of fancy they are), could be rallied to the idea of massive, passive civil disobedience.”  The question, as Billy points out, is how to best craft the argument to bring this idea into action on a national scale.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/28  at  05:58 PM

  13. Everyone should read Solzhenitsyn.  Just saying.  Make you think.

    Sad, but the Violent will fight the Passive in the end.  I hope I’m wrong.

    Posted by Yabu  on  06/29  at  08:26 AM

  14. Yabu: after long consideration during 2000, it was a toss-up between A.S. and A.R.—who was the most important writer of all the twentieth century.

    I gave it to him.

    http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php?id=P3889

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  06/29  at  12:01 PM

  15. civil disobedience against the IRS didn’t work out so well for me. It would work if thousands of others did it at the same time but not just one little old me.  I wasn’t ready to go to prison or become a homeless person.  That’s what it would have taken.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/29  at  04:11 PM

  16. Nancy,

    Civil disobedience against the IRS is a difficult issue, and you correctly note it would work “if thousands of others did it at the same time.”

    I noted this, briefly, in my post, when I stated that the private sector is in bribed collusion with the State, i.e. strong arming their employees for taxes as deputized IRS agents.

    Most Americans are not ready to go to prison, or live life out on the streets, you’re not the only one with this aversion.

    I’ll repeat the ending from my previous comment (no. 12 above).

    I think that the majority of American individuals are not violence oriented.  Rather, American individuals, having embraced many of the tenets of the enlightment which have come down to us (granted - many are misguided and twisted by the immorality of politics and accepted rather than rejected for the utopian flights of fancy they are), could be rallied to the idea of massive, passive civil disobedience.”  The question, as Billy points out, is how to best craft the argument to bring this idea into action on a national scale.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  06/30  at  06:53 AM

  17. Here is a crucial precept in all this:

    They use the things that we love, against us.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  06/30  at  12:20 PM

  18. The BNP has never been a advocate of free-market economics or liberty - they have always been collectivist and their primary focus is racial politics (although supposedly they’ve modified the list of groups they don’t like recently)> To compare them to any major American political party or the Libertarian movement is highly misleading, to say the least.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/30  at  05:05 PM

  19. No need to fight or reform. Global idiocracy is not sustainable.  It will self-destruct. 

    Possibly via nuclear weapons.  Do you have a fallout shelter?

    Possibly via a coronal mass ejection on the fragile electrical grid.  Are you able to go Amish?

    In an endarkenment, it is foolish to expend energy on enlightenment.  So build your monastery, gather books, and break on through to the other side. 

    Be a wizened old owl, scorned by most of society.  A few will find you when the time comes.

    Like Yoda you will be.

    Posted by Deep Rainforest  on  06/30  at  05:42 PM

  20. Look the liberty movement faces two very important roadblocks in getting its message across.
    1)Liberty minded folks are hard to organize. Face it we are not group thinkers and we are not satisfied with idiotic chants and sign’s. We dont have legions of homeless art students willing to churn out paper mache heads for our protests.
    2) Liberty minded folks value property and the rule of law. We have a hard time getting over the idea that attacks against property may be needed to get our point across. I loved Mikes idea of the window war but I dont think it was wide spread enough or accepted by enough 3%‘s to stick it home. There was even a suggestion by someone to use broken glass stickers rather than actually break the glass…..retarded!!!

    Our threats of “cold dead hands” are hollow because no one has actually done it. We like living too much and in spite of our detest for government as it stands we would rather face the jury than the firing squad. It does not help that when someone who does have a good case gets it in their heads that they can represent themselves in court and they get their ass handed to them and made to look like the fools they are. Property is our only option unless we are willing to go all out and start a fight ourselves. So get over the idea that destroying the property of the ruling class is a bad thing. Hell they will do it to you whenever it suits them.

    You want strategy? Well here is an option. Denial Of Service.
    Our wealth is being taken from us and given to the parasite class via government agency. SO why fight the government goons with guns? Fight the agencies dolling out our tax dollars who are not armed and sitting their fat as lambs for the picking. Not only does it keep our funds from being distributed it has the added bonus of pissing off the parasites and forcing them to seek other options for their livelyhood.
    This means shutting down the various physical locations of the social services for as long as possible in your area. Find them fix them and shut them down. 
    How say you?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  08:04 AM

  21. I’m afraid there might be something to Rainforest’s comment.  I’ve watched all this coming since I was a boy, and now I’m a grizzled old fart.

    The sort of armed revolt I see the threepers fantasize about - that I fantasized about when I was young - won’t work here.  It has only ever worked against regimes like the Czars or the French monarchy, who were already so hollow and rotten that only the appearance remained.  And even they had so hardened their enemies against them that by the time they noticed they were in trouble they faced a mighty foe.

    Sorry guys - we are not a mighty foe.  We are not bringing this or any other regime down with force of arms.

    Massive civil disobedience?  I see this as a more plausible approach, because for all our beloved hyperbole Mordor-by-the-Potomac isn’t Moscow or Beijing.  They don’t have the stomach for gulags.  Yet.  Massive civil disobedience could turn the state governments our way, and the state governments are the key to our release if release is possible.

    I say plausible rather than possible because “Massive civil disobedience” requires massive numbers.  Where are ours?  Sigh - home watching football, or sitting in their cubicles at work wondering how they’re going to pay for Johnnie’s new shoes.

    Face it, guys.  Right now we’re in the “bunch of angry cranks sitting around the tavern” stage of the Third American Revolution.  As far as I can tell we’ve been stuck there for the past forty years or so.

    Posted by Joel  on  07/01  at  08:26 AM

  22. I see this thread going in the direction of the debate between “let’s go get ‘em, boys” and “starve the monkeys” (as Baugh would frame it)

    Each has it’s pros and cons, but a key selling point for “let’s go get ‘em boys” is usually left out of the debate.  And that selling point is this:


    “IT’S FUN TO SHOOT SOME PEOPLE”


    Yep, and those aren’t my words:

    http://restoretheconstitution.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/some-quotes-from-arguably-the-greatest-living-human-being/

    The sheer joy of watching your enemy drop is usually not addressed in weighing “get ‘em boys” vs. “starve.”  And this is a selling point, believe me.  Maybe not to the average principled high road libertarian internet commentator, but, trust me, there is a small minority of the population who sees the opportunity to kill “bad guys” as a selling point in its own right, as un-PC and childish as this may sound to some.

    Again, “It’s fun to shoot some people” are not mine, but the words of USMC Gen. James Mattis, a real-life bad ass and role model.  The words should be taken seriously.  Marines look up to him, arguably more than any other living general, because of his direct statements on the joys of killing enemy personnell.

    Posted by Daniel Almond  on  07/01  at  09:22 AM

  23. Of course it’s fun to shoot some people.  Not so fun when they shoot back, 100 to one.

    Stalin is supposed to have asked FDR about the Pope, “Where are his divisions?”  It’s a relevant question.  If you’re talking about moving into the “shoot the bastards” phase, I want to know.  Where are ours?

    I’ve worked for over forty years to keep my epitaph from reading “Lone Nut.”  I still consider it a worthy goal.  For those who think we’re going to solve this by having fun shooting some people, I ask again: Where are our numbers?

    They’re not there.

    Posted by Joel  on  07/01  at  09:43 AM

  24. “However, at least one of ours was harassed by criminal gang elements acting as “law enforcement” and had his gun stolen by them while enroute from the 4-19 armed rally”

    May I ask (only somewhat rhetorically), why have a gun at all if one is not prepared to use it in exactly that sort of circumstance?

    To the more general issue: nothing will happen until people start feeling it at the dinner table.  Americans are still fed and comfortable and entertained by American Idol.  As long as that continues, tolerance of this government will continue.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  09:50 AM

  25. The sulphuric acid tactic (hit-run-claim responsibility anonymously) was thrown out to address some of the points in the previous two comments. 

    All it takes is one.

    Posted by Daniel Almond  on  07/01  at  10:21 AM

  26. To:

    —-“However, at least one of ours was harassed by criminal gang elements acting as “law enforcement” and had his gun stolen by them while enroute from the 4-19 armed rally”

    May I ask (only somewhat rhetorically), why have a gun at all if one is not prepared to use it in exactly that sort of circumstance?——-

    In case the circumstance presents itself differently perhaps.  Perhaps as a tripwire to get the conversation going in the direction of different, less conventional, more “underhanded” strategies than “cold dead hands.”

    Perhaps so that, eventually, the oathbreaking officer responsible will have his name and home address posted online for all of us to see….............including the more “underhanded” among us.

    Soon.

    Posted by Daniel Almond  on  07/01  at  10:25 AM

  27. Face it guys.
    The republic is long dead.
    Nothing we can do will bring it back.
    At least not as an intact nation, as it once was.

    All we have left is the decision of how we will die.
    Resisting? Failing to submit? Or from the neglect and predation that is all we are being left with?
    And our other choice is what sort of honor guard we will bring with us when we do.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  11:23 AM

  28. “Jesus, I cannot think of a more underhanded option as an alleged vehicle for restoring freedom.” “Jesus”? I hope that was a prayer, bud and not blaspheming.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  01:59 PM

  29. IF only enough Americans still had courage.  America is NO LONGER the “home of the brave.”  Hasn’t been for some time.  Yes, our military warriors are brave but they have the authority of the “State” behind them.  Without the authority of the state, the largest majority of Americans are nothing more than humble sheep allowing themselves and their posterity (grandkids and great, great, great, great grandkids ad infinitum) to be led with shoulders humped and eyes downcast into indentured servitude to the One World Government, New World Order or whatever you want to call it.

    I have been begging and pleading for over two years now on various blogs/websites across the web for MILLIONS of FREEDOM-LOVING Americans to joint together in a massive tax protest by simply not completing and sending in their tax forms.

    I can’t even get them to LEGALLY go to their employer and increase the monthly exemptions on their paychecks so that ZERO FUNDS are deducted and sent to the Feds.  Hell, that’s a LEGAL action everyone with a “real job” could do.  But, alas, NOTHING!!

    All they can do is complain, bitch and moan but there’s no will to actually resist.

    I have lost all faith in the American people.  The American experiment in individual liberty and self-governance by the people is failing as we speak because the people are cowards.

    They think they’ll be able to vote themselves out of this mess.  Wrong!!!!!!  Our elections have been corrupted and illegitimate for the last decade at least.  Now, the U.S. DOJ has instructed it’s personnel that no legal actions will be taken against people of color who violate law and blatantly on video intimidate voters outside polling stations. 

    IF the government is not going to fulfill its duty to enforce our laws so that WE ALL ARE EQUALLY PROTECTED, then it becomes incumbent upon We the People to enforce them outselves.  How many do you think have the courage of their convictions to do so?

    I think the best way out of this is if a few, highly trained patriots with the requisite resources and access would effect “Operation Consequence” and directly target some of the most egregious offenders in Congress and the Executive branch much like those outlined in the book, “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross.

    I would LOVE TO DO IT MYSELF but I simply do not have the training, resources nor access and I’m pretty sure I’m on their watch list already as nobody from the Census has come to my door since I threw away the census form without even opening it.  I thought they would send some SEIU or ACORN operative to my front door to ask me inappropriate questions if I refused to complete and return their questionnaire but alas, it’s been months now and no takers.  Maybe I just “fell through the cracks.”

    We’re in bad shape and the people still won’t do anything constructive or even the smallest bit of disobedient to send a signal to the “authorities.”

    Like another poster stated, there’s little we can do effectively alone.  Any successful attempt must have MILLIONS of brave americans willing to participate.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  02:05 PM

  30. To Concerned American:  They won’t respond with “mass arrests and incarcerations” etc. IF ENOUGH AMERICANS PARTICIPATE because they would NOT have the necessary resources to effect such arrests, prosecutions and detentions - even if they used the NG and active military in conjunction with ALL LE agencies, Federal, State and local.  That’s why it is critical that MILLIONS OF AMERICANS participate in the protest.

    IF the authorities were to bring in foreign troops to help - even via the United Nations - I think (or at least hope) that would enrage and activate MILLIONS MORE Americans to the resistance.

    IF the authorities were to use too much “deadly force” that too, I hope, would enrage and activate millions more to the cause.

    All I really know for sure is that it’s already past time that we should DO SOMETHING and NOTHING is being done.

    Again, I’m willing to join MILLIONS of other Americans.  I am NOT willing to jump out front with the guidon and be massacred while the rest fall out of ranks in the rear from fear.

    No longer the “home of the brave” and THAT is very sad.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  02:23 PM

  31. Civil Disobedience Discussion

    I am a new reader of this blog and find it interesting, but there is one thing that is constantly missing in most discussions of this nature.  That is the drawing a distinction between those actions that are a defensive in nature from those that are acts of civil disobedience.

    Defense: defending from attack, danger, or injury; the forcible repulsion of an unlawful and violent attack, such as the defense of one’s person, family, friends or property.

    Civil disobedience: The refusal to obey a law out of a belief that the law is morally wrong while willingly accepting the consequences of breaking that law.

    For some strange reason there are a large number of people who believe that in the “government” they are facing a unified resistance.  Nothing can be further from the truth; recent events (illegal drugs, the Census, illegal immigration…etc) should amply prove that the present “national,” as opposed to a “Federal,” government is anything but unified or even capable of being unified.

    In what instance has the national government shown the ability to strangle an active resistance to actions which have been declared illegal?  Think of the Probation Laws of the 1920’s or any other time in history where a mass of people collectively refused to obey the “law.”

    Now, apply that lesson to an underground economy, a tax revolt, or a freedom movement.  Does anyone really think there would be a unified response from the national government?  Vote with actions!

    Historically speaking a national government is a suicidal government.  We don’t need to destroy anything it will destroy itself.  What is needed is to have an economic system (black market; underground economy) in place that will offer a means of supplying the necessities of life during the time of social chaos.  Dark Ages revisited…it is a distinct possibility.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  04:15 PM

  32. Getting the unpleasant bits out of the way first:

    For AM and everyone else who is convinced that it’s all over, it’s all lost, there’s nothing we can do, the State has won, why the hell are you even participating in the discussion?  Why not just find a sunny meadow and put a gun barrel in your mouth?  I have no plans to fold my tents because the job is hard and the outlook is grim and I might lose.  My response to anyone whose sole contribution is to try and sap the will out of anyone who hasn’t given up is, you have my official permission to think I’m an overoptimistic Pollyanna all you please, but kindly STFU and get out of the way.  If I go out, I will go out fighting, not weeping and moaning.

    Daniel:  Gotta actually throw acid on somebody before anyone will take the threat seriously.  Words are not legal tender in this economy.  Unfortunately, you have to do it and make sure everyone knows who did it and why, or it’s just some sicko throwing acid.  Converting the crime to a political act more or less guarantees that some patriot is going to jail and is going to be made a very loud and bloody example.  Know any volunteers?  Me neither.

    For my part, I’m behind the property damage ideas, although I would not stop at windows.  Take their offices, computer networks, radio towers, motor pools, and power grids, and save deadly force for ambushing deadly threats if they’re deployed (but know where the vans get parked and make sure the JBTs have to roll in their daughter’s Toyotas).  Render your AO ungovernable.  It’s secession without a declaration.

    None of this will restore the Constitution, the whole rotten establishment needs to come down and be defanged and a lot of nation-building has to occur before that can happen, and that’s beyond us at the moment.  There’s opportunity in chaos, however, and we can for damn sure make some chaos.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/01  at  05:01 PM

  33. My meager .02cents:

    Starving Leviathan will NEVER work.  The Fed has already proven it will just print more money to get past ANY financial hiccup.

    Meanwhile, participants of this Starving The Beast venture can expect the IRS (and any other agency - Fed/State/Local) to be crawling up your ass with a fine microscope for the trouble you caused them in trying to starve them out. 

    Don’t entertain fantasies of ‘having your day in court’.  You and everyone you care about will be physically and financially broken LONG before your ‘case’ ever sees the light of day.  If that day ever does come, damaging evidence will be manufactured, favorable witnesses will be excluded… If you follow David Codreas’ War On Guns posts you have seen this sort of ‘justice’ unfold before your very eyes.

    Temnota @#32 above I believe is on the right track.  To restore Liberty, we need lots and lots of Grey Men.

    Check the link in my Handle for a glimpse on what our some of our Northern Neighbors think about all this.

    Posted by Texas Shooter  on  07/01  at  09:31 PM

  34. Interesting discussion.  Anyone who seriously thinks it may be fun to shoot another person, should just convince himself that it’s just as fun to be a serf. One lie is as good as another, I think.

    Humans cannot kill a Leviathan; only a Leviathan can do that.  Luckily irrationality, and especially evil irrationality, translates to “suicidal.”  The Leviathan will kill itself.

    It’s always been about the money, you know.  That’s the lifeblood, the goal, of all of this.  The Leviathan is comprised of individuals (sort of!) who need the loot in order to continue living.  Like all suicidal organisms, they are well on their way to turning their lifeblood into nothing at all.  And like all irrational organisms, they won’t know it until after it already happened.  If then.

    Rule of Law will reign supreme when words can stop bullets and something other than individuals can instantiate it.  Till then, you can forget about building a “lawful” Leviathan that will kill this one.  It just ain’t gonna happen, and for very good reasons.  Your mob, no matter how well intentioned, is still just another mob.

    The proper tack here is, “Chill.”  Justice is what reality imposes on the irrational and the lifeblood of the Leviathan is in the middle of turning into water…more precisely bits of information and scraps of paper good for nothing but starting fires.  Let those fires burn, I say.

    LET LOGIC HOLD.  It does, and it will.

    All you can do in the meanwhile is act as you are, as a rational animal.  This means learning, and what you have to learn is what it means to be alive as a person, and engage that knowledge every moment of your lives.  Do that, in order that when the Leviathan gasps its last breath, you won’t be saying to yourself, “What the hell do I do now?”

    Those who don’t know will be treated at the time by those of us who do…well, as if they didn’t know!  Not much trading value in that, eh?

    Posted by Jim Klein  on  07/02  at  07:12 AM

  35. Morning, Jim.

    I have only a couple of quibbles with your analysis.  Leviathan, as H. G. Wells pointed out in his most famous work, can be destroyed by very tiny things indeed, if there are enough of them, and if they are optimized for the task.  It may take a large group to restore widespread order and build on the rubble, but I am not convinced that such an outcome is either necessary or desirable.  We’ve seen where large nation-states go over time.  Perhaps we’d be better off in a flock of little Balkanized porcupine states, with at most a framework so loose and a charter so limiting and written with such unambiguous clarity that it will be a thousand years before anyone feels the need to “interpret’ it again.

    Yes, Leviathan will fall on its own, eventually, but it will do so thrashing about and biting at everything within reach, and we don’t have the luxury of standing outside the cage.  The oligarchs of western society, behind their veneer of civilization, are no different than the rude chieftains of nomadic raiders.  They will do anything, steal anything, and kill or enslave anyone to ensure their own survival, and in our modern age of supersonic travel and global communications, they don’t even have to remain within reach of their victims.  They can retreat to some quiet spot and work their will by remote control, then move back in when we’ve been pacified and chained.

    We do have the power to determine whether things come apart slowly, under evolutionary pressure, or quickly, helped along by patriotic disease and packs of small, quick predators.  Both options are nasty and bloody, but one of them is over much sooner and leaves more of a country behind to build on.  I’m a rip-the-bandaid-off type.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/02  at  08:09 AM

  36. To this:

    —Daniel:  Gotta actually throw acid on somebody before anyone will take the threat seriously.  Words are not legal tender in this economy.  Unfortunately, you have to do it and make sure everyone knows who did it and why, or it’s just some sicko throwing acid.  Converting the crime to a political act more or less guarantees that some patriot is going to jail and is going to be made a very loud and bloody example.  Know any volunteers?  Me neither.—

    I’m not going to throw acid in anyone’s face.  Not me.  I mean, I’m posting with my real name, and I put myself out there in front of the cameras on April 19th at Gravelly Point.

    I’ve been called by the FBI asking about something I WASN’T even involved with (I didn’t say anything in any event), so I’m sure I’d be looked at following a politically motivated acid attack.

    I’m not a grey man myself, but I’m sure there are many of them.

    Anyway, your relevant point seems to be that unless there is a NAMED claim of responsibility (as opposed to an anonymous one), then all deterrent value is gone.

    Is that what you’re suggesting?  That in order for deterrent violence to be effective that the actor has to allow himslef to get caught?!?

    That ain’t how it works, I can tell you.

    Ask an Afghan school girl who’s afraid to go to school for fear that a Taliban thug might throw acid at her, as had happened to some of her friends.  This has happended. Whether the acid thrower came out and identified himself honestly and completely as “Muhammad Umar Nazim” or whoever or not, the schoolgirl with the pristine face is not going to want to end up like her friend with the melted face.  The attacker can simply identify himself as “the local Taliban enforcer” and accomplish the deterrent effect.

    Another example:

    Iraqi police in 2004-2006.  They were notorious for doing little to nothing becaue of fear of retaliation by insurgents.  Everyone in town knew who the police were.  The insurgents were’nt so open about their identities. Did those insurgents need to identify themselves by name in order for the threats to work at persuading the Iraqi Police in some areas to not show up for work?

    No.

    Bottom line is that violent acts do not need to have a name attached to them in order to be effective deterrents.

    Your question “any volunteers (to do an acid attack, claim it by name, and go to jail)?” is irrelevant.

    Rather the question should be:

    “Any grey men ready to put their grey status to use?”

    The grey man will not respond online.

    Posted by Daniel Almond  on  07/02  at  09:19 AM

  37. Jim Klein,

    To this:

    —“Anyone who seriously thinks it may be fun to shoot another person, should just convince himself that it’s just as fun to be a serf. One lie is as good as another, I think.”—

    I can say from experience that it is fun to shoot some people.  Getting shot back at, not so much.  But watching a real live human, a bad one, go down in your sights, it’s a rush, man. 

    But as a credible deterrent to stateside gun confiscation or other abuses, I still think vitriolage would be more effective.

    BTW, any oathbreakers reading this want to confiscate my weapon when I go the next RTC rally in Greensboro, NC on Aug 14th?

    Any volunteers?

    Posted by Daniel Almond  on  07/02  at  09:34 AM

  38. “We do have the power to determine whether things come apart slowly, under evolutionary pressure, or quickly, helped along by patriotic disease and packs of small, quick predators.”

    Maybe so, but the goal should be building something up and not tearing something down.  The natural state of being alive is about creation, not destruction.  Besides, as a matter of fact, you have no power over anyone but yourself.  So that’s what you should build up, of course, since that’s all you /can/ build up.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I’ve been doing this all my life and I’m just as impatient as anyone…maybe more, since I have fewer days left.  But just as each witty plan coming from the Empire brings with it untold unintended consequences, so will all attempts to tear it down without being awfully careful about underlying principles.  Remember, a righteous mob is still a mob.

    We had a Justified Revolution once, and look where where we are now.  The error has always been the belief that you and I together creates a third entity, while the simple truth is that you and I together still leaves two distinct individual entities.  We may choose to work together, and hopefully we will, but it’s an error of the highest order to believe that we’ve actually created something outside of ourselves, let alone some fanciful sort of moral entity.

    Indeed…if you look very carefully, you’ll see that this is precisely the falsehood that carried the con along, all the time.  The way to end the con is not to supplant the imagined moral entity, but rather to recognize and declare the only sort of moral entity there is.

    Posted by Jim Klein  on  07/02  at  10:02 AM

  39. “I can say from experience that it is fun to shoot some people.  Getting shot back at, not so much.  But watching a real live human, a bad one, go down in your sights, it’s a rush, man.”

    That’s a rush, not fun.  Disneyland is fun.  You can even plead to moral righteousness, like say shooting a rapist in action.  It’s still not fun since included in the perceptual scene is the rapist’s existence as a rapist.  Nothing fun about that, I’m sure.

    Nonetheless, I take your point and don’t really care to quibble too much.  This is related to the distinction between actually doing good versus doing that which is the least harmful.  As a “calculus of loss,” I have no argument about your hierarchy.  As a wise decision for how to go out and have some fun, I do.  That’s all.

    Posted by Jim Klein  on  07/02  at  10:13 AM

  40. @Daniel,

    The act has to have a name attached to it, although I did not specify that it had to be an individual’s name.  The examples you gave might not know the name of their attacker, but they know who he represents.  The same will be true here, even if the name is “The guys who sent that threatening letter to the paper last week”.

    You won’t do it because you’re a public face and an obvious suspect, I won’t do it because I disagree with the tactic on its face and in any event am only semi-private (I use a board handle but make no other effort to hide my identity), and I can’t speak for anybody seriously gray.  It’s not a thing that many people who think like us would do, it’s a bad guy tactic and will backfire on us.  It is possible to be scary without being completely evil.

    Side note:  it’s becoming apparent that attendance at the Gravelly Point rally has become something of a credential in these circles.  Sort through the pics that were circulating on the web after the event and you’ll find one that Reuters released that my wife has captioned “Does this CETME make my ass look fat?”  It’s fairly obvious which one that is.  CBC even used me as their OTS graphic for their hit piece.  Pete White will also remember me (and my boonie-hatted son) from the threeper gathering at the 9/12 rally.  I put my ass on the line, and my face in databases, the same as everyone else there.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/02  at  04:20 PM

  41. Temnota,

    Thanks for turning out at Gravelly Point!

    We may disagree on tactics, but I gotta respect your willingness to put your money where your mouth is.  No one can dismiss you as a “keyboard commando.”

    Unfortunately, one of ours was harassed and had his guns taken from him by a uniformed criminal as he returned home from the 4-19 rally.  The situation has not been resolved.  So, I can’t confidently say that there won’t be similar confiscation activity associated with the upcoming 8-14 rally in NC.  You can see where the problem comes to a head here—- if uniformed criminals are allowed to take RTC goers weapons w/o reason and w/o CONSEQUENCE, that has a chilling effect on future exerciuses of 1A and 2A rights.  If the officer who took the patriot’s guns is allowed to stay on the force, that will send the message that future RTC goers that their guns may be taken on the road to and from.

    IF the officer is allowed to remain on the force, then RTC’ers face two choices:

    1- Stay home and accept the fact that 1A and 2A rights are subject to the whim of any old oathbreaker with a gun and a badge.

    2- Go to the rallies with the understanding that their guns may be taken w/o consequence.

    Either one is a major loss not only for the RTC message, but also for 2A rights in general.

    Posted by Daniel Almond  on  07/03  at  08:03 PM

  42. “In an endarkenment, it is foolish to expend energy on enlightenment.  So build your monastery, gather books, and break on through to the other side.  “

    That’s the conclusion I came to a while ago, but with some caveats. First, it is worthwhile to spend resources finding other points of light.  Preserving something for the other side includes minds to hold the ideas you keep in those books. Second, break on through does not necessarily provide an escape from the violence, only a different context for it.

    And third, while we’re waiting, why not start rebuilding?

    Posted by Kyle Bennett  on  02/22  at  04:12 PM

  43. @Temnota: Everyone does not need to know who did it, they just need to know that it was done. Anonymity adds suspense and deepens the fear.

    The politicians can’t hurt you but their thugs on the street can and that is who needs to be gutted. Eviscerate a few, anonymously, and the others will take note.

    Now, individuals employed by the state are harming individuals not employed by the state and this will be settled at the individual level if it is to be settled at all.

    I agree with someone above that said the comfort level is still too high in the US. Hungry belly’s get downright mean.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/22  at  09:58 PM

  44. First, it is worthwhile to spend resources finding other points of light.  Preserving something for the other side includes minds to hold the ideas you keep in those books. Second, break on through does not necessarily provide an escape from the violence, only a different context for it.

    And third, while we’re waiting, why not start rebuilding?

    Kyle, your comment is spot on.  I especially note the importance of “minds to hold the ideas you keep in those books.”  Those stacks of books, full of ideas, do us no good if we do not hold those ideas in our minds, making them our own, not just beautiful words on paper.

    The first thing that requires rebuilding is individuals’ minds.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  02/23  at  04:24 PM

  45. “The first thing that requires rebuilding is individuals’ minds. “

    Yes, specifically *individual* minds.  We cannot reform the hive mind, those that have given themselves over to it are irretrievably lost, except in the occasional lucky case.

    But more than that can be rebuilt. Methods, praxis, norms, taboos, relationships, knowledge, and even to some extent capital. Both rebuilt and just built.

    The young are both salvageable (do I really want to say “savable”?), and more likely to endure. There is no longer any avoiding a long, bloody struggle, even sequestered in a monastery. There’s only one slim, Hail Mary chance to mitigate it, and that is to rebuild before everything gets torn down, so there is something to escape to (contra Reagan).

    Posted by Kyle Bennett  on  02/23  at  09:16 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Barack Hussein Obama - "Educator-in-Chief on Islam"

Previous entry: Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States Tap Dance

<< Back to main