meet the vigilantes
the dollar vigilante blog
Put Down the Guns and Do Something Useful
Share this article on:
The tsunami of emails and death threats to Jim Karger and my comments on the likelihood of gun confiscation or a non-revolutionary event continues!
To close out the week, let’s look at a few of the comments we’ve received.
WE WILL FIGHT LIKE THE AFGHANIS!
Many of the responses point out that the US Army hasn’t exactly shown an expertise in controlling populations in occupied territories around the world. “Look, if they can’t win in Afghanistan,” they say, “how can they win here?”
We have to point out that the typical inhabitant of a country will consider invaders from another country to be just that: invaders. The US tax cows would likely respond with guerrilla violence if, say, China or Canada invaded.
But Americans love their military. They’re absolutely crazy about their armed forces. They nod smilingly when airlines let the military board first.
They stand and applaud at sporting events when some nameless Private walks onto the field for the singing of the National Abomination. To the average American, the US military can do no wrong.
So don’t expect Americans to act like Afghanis towards the US Army. In fact, don’t be surprised if more than a few Americans genuflect as they hand over their guns and do as they’re told.
This isn’t Vietnam. There will be a few guerrilla resistors. But if they think for a second they can “blend in” with the locals for protection, they have another thing coming. They will be ratted out. When their deaths are reported on the news, their countrymen will cheer at the nullification of another terrorist, the destruction of an enemy of the state.
Any resistance will be insignificant and isolated, and will be snuffed out fairly quickly. America wasn’t exactly stocked full of freedom-lovers in the first place. In the event of a full-blown police state, the depletion rate will exceed the replenishment rate.
THE MILITARY AND POLICE WILL DEFECT!
Another of the arguments is something like this: “But some of the soldiers and police will defect to the rebellion—especially once the government starts killing Americans.
That’s a good one. The cops are no longer Andy Griffith-type peacekeepers.
We aren’t in Mayberry anymore! They are law enforcers. They enforce the law, no matter how boneheaded or vile. They will kidnap you, confiscate your property, and even kill you. That is the US as it exists.
If you dare defy law enforcement, your life is forfeited. Law enforcement and juries both consider the lives of officers to be sacred in comparison to the lives of the masses. A cop’s word is worth more, too. And they’re all trained to lie accordingly.
The cops and soldiers are already part of a new Praetorian class. Why would they defect just because a few “sovereign” type nutcases get murdered for not complying with the holy government’s edicts?
They won’t. At this point police salaries and benefits are absurdly cozy (and again, most Americans think that no amount is too much for certain government workers like cops and teachers). Few cops earn less than $100,000 today. It would take an exceptionally principled person to turn that down because a few strangers get shot for resisting the authority they represent, and it’s never happened as far as we’ve seen. No cop has ever tackled another cop for executing a suspect that we’re aware of.
Besides, the ranks of the police (and military) aren’t exactly full of principled people. What kind of person collects a paycheck for enforcing unjust prohibition laws? They say they swore to uphold the constitution. But if they did they would have already killed all their officers, Congressman, Senators, and Barack Obombya.
Maybe some small percentage of the people who take up guns for the state do so with honest intentions to “help”. We’d like to suggest that they help by starting a business that provides useful services to the private sector, instead of waving guns around for the public sector.
Note that no one has defected from the Anaheim police force this week.
WE OUTNUMBER THE MILITARY AND POLICE!
Another argument sent to us is that civilian Americans outnumber their military and police personnel roughly 300 to 1. Even if every single American took up arms against the military and police (who are quickly merging into two arms of the same monster), they’d be hard pressed to beat drones and F-15s.
But the government doesn’t have to worry about hearing a peep from its 330 million docile tax cows. The government holds legitimacy in the ruminant brains of its livestock. The few very vocal “out of my cold, dead hands” warriors will choose submission as the better part of valor when the time comes and they realize they enjoy zero support from their countrymen. Their valiant deaths will be in vain. And they will know it. A few David Koresh types may hold out, but the vast majority beating their Internet chests will choose the path of no resistance should it come to that.
But here at TDV we are NOT calling these people cowards. Far from it. We are anarchists. We oppose the congealed violence that IS government. We always look for the peaceful, mutually beneficial option (you know, the kind that defines the market solution at the heart of capitalism).
Instead of taking bullets for defiance when the militarized police roll through your town, why not withdraw your support now?
THE NON-VIOLENT WAY TO DEFEAT THE US GOVERNMENT
"I know that withholding of payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government." — Mahatma Gandhi
Act bravely. And peacefully.
This war will not be won with violence.
Not paying income taxes to cripple the government would require the same amount of mass consent that we believe is very unlikely to materialize in the event of gun confiscation. But getting some critical mass of taxpayers to stop would actually be far easier than getting some critical number to resist the military-police hybrid, and you can win without firing a shot.
In the last one month we’ve identified approximately 500 contrarian websites and Internet radio shows (and growing). Would they each on average have 10,000 listeners? Alex Jones and George Noory would have millions while other shows and websites, while others like Adam Kokesh are rising dramatically. Others might only have a couple of thousand. We think therefore it’s reasonable to say, on average, they each have 10,000 listeners.
That’s 5,000,000 already awake, contrarian, generally pissed-off-but-feeling-helpless listeners/readers/viewers in America alone who know the private, for-profit central banks (aided by their corporate, banking, and state buddies) are and always have been solely responsible for all the chaos, violence and poverty in the world. Those 5,000,000 contrarians don’t have to be woken up and educated from scratch. They’re already there.
If they stopped paying taxes it would almost destroy the entire system. And, even if you absolutely insist on paying their extortion, you could at least reject the fiat Federal Reserve Notes every chance you get. Trade your excess dollars for gold and silver. That’s still perfectly legal. That, also, would quickly destroy the dollar and render the beast powerless as it wouldn’t have the money to even pay for its drones and helicopters. But that could easily change when the beast starts feeling too threatened.
If legality bothers you, however, you may want to check your moral foundations. Legal does not mean good. In fact, as anarchists, we can’t but notice that “legal” is a psychological swindle to get you to consent to doing what the state wants, granting it more power and wealth. The only “law” we see that is valid is the pretty obvious one: don’t aggress, i.e. don’t hit, kill, steal. Everything else is a con. Don’t fall for it. As Doug Casey stated, "Any laws other than those dealing with aggression are completely capricious and arbitrary.”
So many of those people with basements full of guns say they will defend their gun ownership with violence. Why not take the peaceful option of withdrawing financial support now by withholding their extortion payments? If you’re so willing to die in guerrilla warfare, why be so afraid of simply not filing taxes?
Like we pointed out above, there are probably millions of aware folks out there right now. We know that most of them won’t take a bullet to resist tyranny. We can only hope they would at least peacefully stop offering up half their income for the sake of liberty.
Perhaps the phrase should change, “they’ll have to come get their extortive taxes out of my cold dead hands.”
Yoututbe
55
Videos | 2322 Subscribers 
Twitter Feed
Archives
- May 2013 (21)
- April 2013 (30)
- March 2013 (32)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (30)
- December 2012 (24)
- November 2012 (30)
- October 2012 (31)
- September 2012 (30)
- August 2012 (31)
- July 2012 (36)
- June 2012 (31)
- May 2012 (29)
- April 2012 (22)
- 1 of 3
- ››
latest comments
Comments (56)
"IMHO, the "from-my-cold-dead-hands" crowd is clinging to the the tenuous notion that just because Americans are still 'allowed' to have guns means they're free and willingly consent to the current conditions..."Why would you say such a thing? Does it make you feel superior to construct these straw men and then beat them to pieces?This "cold dead hands" crowd is like any other crowd, composed of individuals. Some think one way, some another. I don't believe any I have talked to "consent to the current conditions". However it is indisputable that fully enslaved people are never armed people."Its funny that you bring up "self-interest"...as if that doesn't apply to gun-owners put in the position of either giving up their guns or facing the consequences of disobedience."It does apply to them. But there are an awful lot of people out there with nothing to lose (government making more every day), or people who have already lived full lives. Do you really believe that disobedience is impossible? Is there literally no line they could cross that would get you fighting them? If so, what does that say about you? The point is not to avoid death, since nobody avoids it. The point is to take some bastards with you when you go."Did LEO's and the military "stand-down" in New Orleans post-Katrina?"It's actually commonplace for this to happen. Even the Chinese government had to shop around to find units willing to crush the Tiananmen Square protesters, and the attempted coup in Russia during the Yeltsin regime also failed for this reason. Depending on it happening is probably a mistake, but it's very likely to happen here."AGAIN, Paul, I find it "amusing" that y'all big-talking, wanna-be 'revolutionaries' primary strategy for defeating your foe is to...wait for them to simply give up!"I've looked at your posts here. They seem to consist of building yourself up by sneering at others. Not a very considerate way of acting, seems to me.
its actually the 75th largest army in the world.......
Slave with a gun is a slave. Slave is a state of the soul. Those who were brought up and educated within public education system are brainwashed to be slaves. The USA public education machine has performed its task of dumbing down sheeple admirably. I am talking about the overwhelming majority here. They were preparing for the taking away the guns for a long time. The frog has been boiled and cooked. (((
Some points to consider - owning guns with NO intention of using them is a fantastic form of rebellion. There's no need to be bombastic and threaten the government with violence - that's suicidal.However, for everyone man who has a gun, the government KNOWS they need to send at least 6 much more heavily armed men to take it away.I believe if you live in a despotic Western state, and you can legally do so, you SHOULD own as many guns as you can but have ABSOLUTELY NO intention to use them against your overlords. If they decide to commit the enormous amount of resources they need to take your guns, I say let them. Without resisting, you will cause significantly more damage to them than they will to you, because reality will settle in, I believe soon, that government's can't flush resources down the toilet pursuing insane political ideologies that destroy both wealth and liberty. The sooner they go bankrupt, the sooner the rebuilding can begin - if it means giving up a few hunks of metal - so be it.The economic reality is that bankrupt Western governments got that way by acting as if there was no limit to the amount of resources they could expend in their hair brained schemes. Even with the so-called "rule of law," it takes an enormous amount of resources to send an armed squad to invade and search a private residence and there is no guarantee that they will find what they will come looking for.If the government comes for my guns, they can keep whatever they find - I won't resist. The key thing, is they better be ready to expend a considerable amount of resources to find what they come looking for. They will have to spend far more resources than they can extract from me through taxes to get what they want, and even being armed, I won't even need to make a hostile gesture to inflict enormous damage to the insolvent, bankrupt bully I live under.I agree, rebelling against taxation will do more to preserve personal liberty, all forms of liberty, than any arsenal. That said, maintaining a large arsenal isn't necessarily a bad idea either.
Can anyone from the "united we will stand against confiscation" side comment on the long chain of abuses that LibertyMike had posted?In your view, why no one cared for those abuses listed?Was that because anything is ok, as long as it is not a literal "confiscation"?May-be those were not abuses at all the way you see it?May-be there is another explanation?Thank you
@ PaulIMHO, the "from-my-cold-dead-hands" crowd is clinging to the the tenuous notion that just because Americans are still 'allowed' to have guns means they're free and willingly consent to the current conditions...they pretend that rifle-toting Americans can throw off govt. anytime they please.Its funny that you bring up "self-interest"...as if that doesn't apply to gun-owners put in the position of either giving up their guns or facing the consequences of disobedience.Did LEO's and the military "stand-down" in New Orleans post-Katrina? No. Did gun-owners go down fighting disarmament? No. They allowed themselves to be taken out of their homes and tied-up on the street while their homes were ransacked and their guns taken. AGAIN, Paul, I find it "amusing" that y'all big-talking, wanna-be 'revolutionaries' primary strategy for defeating your foe is to...wait for them to simply give up! How convenient for y'all, eh, that you won't even have to fire a shot from your buried guns to win your 'revolution'?!
So, with regard to a method of fighting when one buries his weapons, what is the point? To wait for really really bad stuff to happen? Of course, this does make sense if one expects to be eventually facing death squads. But that would have nothing to do with returning America to the constitutional ideal, but only with survival.Burials and caches are used when there expected to be some sort of regrouping, relocation of either friendly or enemy forces. Then, when the "constitutionalists" take the county, the caches are opened. But this is not the scenario for what can be expected, is it?
'The Internet Milita has made two incredible assumptions here:1. That soldiers and LEO's AREN'T part of the SAME govt. they think they're going to "take down".2. That soldiers and LEO's will "stand down"...'This critique is amusing, since Gene Sharp, the doyenne of nonviolent resistance, also counts on at least a portion of police and military to stand down...'Both Shane and myself have asked and asked and asked. Once again, all of you gun owning tough guys, where have you been?...If you did not stand up for Gordon Kahl when the feds came for him and gunned him down in June of 1983, what makes you think you will do it when they come for your guns?'This displays a profound misunderstanding of human nature. People are motivated by self-interest, period. Going to war over one guy living half way across the country who most have never heard of, violates the rule of self-interest. Stopping yourself from being disarmed and made a slave (even more debased than we now tolerate) does not. Just like the Declaration of Independence put it, people tolerate crap until it becomes intolerable, then they go to war. Almost everyone has a line in the sand; it's just that some of them don't realize it, or they place that line at the entry of the death camp where it is too late to do anything about it.
"Please, read what I said to Paul. You were engaged in an argument that was perhaps mis-stated. It is impossible to fight for your gun rights, because under our system you have no right. Only "we" have rights, but not you or I. Logically absurd. It is not a matter of organization and logistics or field strategy and tactics. To argue about how can we defend our gun rights is to argue how you can fight with yourself and win."Well, personally I think this is nonsensical (and as far as I'm concerned, rights are nothing but a meme). However there is no need for me to convince you or for you to convince me. We need only go our separate ways, live in different types of communities. Either that, or adopt panarchy.As to the general disdain around here for "internet warriors" and so forth, that too is hardly worth arguing about. Some will sit on the sidelines, some with collaborate with the empire, some will talk a good line but hand their guns in when the time comes, and some will fight. All the jawboning about who is smart or correct is a lot of mental masturbation. You have no control over what people do. People in the gun culture are not very impressed with the arguments of gun prohibitionists and with pacifists. Just the way it is.
Paul, your original post from August 3, 2012 listing your three issues was outstanding! I couldn't have said it any better. It took me considerably more words and I still failed to get your points across on a recent comment of mine on the original post which kicked this whole thing off. While I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist and a voluntaryist and I can't wait to get my daily fix of news from LRC every morning, my biggest gripe against the LRCers is the "holier than thou" and "I'm more intellectually honest and philosophically purer than you are" mentality exhibited by so many adherents. The old "Army of One" slogan is perfect for their type. I value my individualism and freedom more than just about anything else but I also recognize the value of community and the association of like minded individuals united for a common purpose and I know that alienating allies is not how you achieve your goals. I probably have far more in common with Mr. Berwick than not, however in my past experiences his type always seems to focus on the one wedge issue that we are in disagreement over to the point of alienating and driving myriad potential allies away. If we have 95% in common we need to work together to focus on regaining liberty lost rather than pissing off a bunch of like minded individuals over the 5% difference. In the past decade I have seen this sort of thing happen far too often which is why I don't hold out much hope of ever being sucessful against leviathan because far too many are willing to alienate allies to prove that they are right and their opinions and beliefs are superior to everyone else. Until they learn to put ego behind the cause no progress is going to be made. That's just my personal opinion and I may be deluded but so far in my almost 5 decades of existence I have seen that happen for more than not. Anyway, thanks for your comment.
@ RudenewtYour 1-2-3 definitions of "Anarchist" & "Anarchism" are WAY off."Anarchy", simply put, is a denial of the legitimacy of RULERS/OWNERS...its the recognition that no human being or group of human beings is entitled to rule/own another.Its ludicrous to say an anarchist is someone who is against ANY/ALL forms of social norms/rules, etc...in fact, ALL of the anarchists I know of have a degree of respect for the primacy of person/property--the foundation of a safe and orderly society--that far exceeds that of any other groups I've ever encountered. Your definitions more readily apply to statists, in fact, who believe rulers have the right to arbitrarily change/ignore so-called 'laws' and violate person/property at will.________________________________________________________________________________________Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ??a???a, anarchia, from ?? an, "not" +? ????? arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a leader", "without rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
Dear Mr. Bonneau,Thank you for that site. I was unaware of it and am quite interested in it. On the front page it says this:
Libertymike,I agree 100 percent. This is what I had in mind as an argument but I could not lay it out as clearly as you just did. If there was any powder at all in the guts of "the liberty protectors" so outspoken on the internet boards, then this long chain of abuses would have been interrupted and stopped long time ago.
Rudenewt,I have exhausted my arguments. I have nothing else to say. Beside myself, Shane and Libertymike had presented a lot of argumentation here. If that does not affect your opinion, then likely nothing I can offer, will.There is also a 50/50 chance that I could be wrong. The time will show, as always. For now, let us agree to disagree.By the way, if you're interested in an intelligent religious commentary on economic and political matters, I would highly recommend to take a look at Gary North's work. I think he offers it for free, amazingly. There are something like 20 volumes, - his entire life's work.
I am very thankful to you for referring to my writing in such a positive way, Jeff.By the way, I think you are right, and will be proven to be right. I think gold stocks will go up in the last bubble. There is no other way around. Right now, yes, I am (not very humbly) explaining the lack of investment into gold production by the speculation that those able to invest today, also agree with me that they will not be able to take the profits. But, I have no doubt this will change, if even for few month. For my prediction to come true, the gold stocks actually have to come up high, as without the bubble, there will be nothing to confiscate!And at that time, just like you always say, very shortly before the time to get out, there will be a huge number of investors without my kind of reservations, pulling into gold stocks, and they will succeed in creating a bubble.The question for me is not whether you are right on predicting the bubble, but whether you are right on estimating your abilities to cash out against the wishes of "the peoples" to secure "vital national resources". If you can cash out, then I think you and those who follow your recommendations will be very rich men.As for your kind offer, I have to say this: According to you, there is some value in my writing. Perhaps so. My quality, by my own estimation however, is far from what you need. Every time I read one of your articles, I sit in awe, because you do it so well, Jeff!
The Internet Milita has made two incredible assumptions here:1. That soldiers and LEO's AREN'T part of the SAME govt. they think they're going to "take down".2. That soldiers and LEO's will "stand down" and allow the Internet Militia to have their way w/the politicians.#2, in particular, is a funny one...how many rebellions were won by the strategy of waiting for the govt's troops/LEO's to "stand down"? LOL!
Both Shane and myself have asked and asked and asked. Once again, all of you gun owning tough guys, where have you been? If you did not stand up for Gordon Kahl when the feds came for him and gunned him down in June of 1983, what makes you think you will do it when they come for your guns? If you are a "patriot", you don't have to be told who Gordon Kahl was and for what he stood. By the way, all of you idolators of the military, Gordon was a WWII vet. It didn't matter and it doesn't matter to Leviathan. Vets are just retired cannon fodder.If you did not stand up for Rodney KIng, what makes you think that you will stand up when they come for your guns? A true "patriot" would not show ANY TOLERANCE for any "peace officer" brutally attacking a defenseless man. Perhaps Rodney was not your favorite color; there is no doubt that the gun totitng, gun loving "from my dead hands" crowd loves blue. Of course, the Rodney King incident demonstrated what we all know: men who join state sponsored military or paramilitary organizations ARE PUSSIES. Let any one of these losers walk up and down the streets of South Central without a gun or billystick or pepper spray or APC and see what happens. If you did not stand up for Randy Weaver and his family, including his wife who was murdered in cold blood by the feds, what makes you think you will stand up when they come for your guns? Where were all the rough and tough gun owners? Did they come to the rescue of Randy Weaver? What did all of those good ole boys do to Lon Houriachi? What did all of those good ole boys do to the ATF? The FBI? What did all of those good ole boys do to George H.W.Bush?If you did not stand up for David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, what makes you think that you will suddenly grow a pair when the blue bellies come for your guns? Ah, you didn't like Mr. Koresh's religion? He was a weirdo? It didn't matter because all of you just sat idly by while those you claim will turn the tide mass murdered nearly 100 people. What did all of you good ole boys do to avenge the children consumed by the conflagration? Did you even hear their screams?If you did not stand up for Muhammad Ali when he defied the United States Government, what makes you think that you will suddenly float like a butterfly and sting like a bee? Ali had a million times more stones than all of the gun owning men in the south in the last 100 years put together. He said FUICK YOU to Uncle Sam. In fact, he bellowed it. That's a lot more than can be said for you good ole boys.Ali is a good example of successful non-violent resistance. He proved that a single individual can stand up and give the middle finger to the state. Altough he may not have thought of it this way, Ali actually struck a major blow for anarchism as he was willing to go the distance in defense of the proposition that the individual and the individual alone gets to chart the course of his life, not the bloody state. When he said, "ain't no viet cong ever called me no nigger" where was the amerikan gun owner? Did they rise to Ali's defense? Did they contribute to Ali's defense fund? Did they march in his behalf? If you did not stand up for Bradley Manning, what makes you think that you will rise to the occaison when the uniformed retards come for your guns? Where are all the good ole boys? Here we have the united states government torturing this young man, for prolonged periods of time, and not a peep from the gun owning crowd. NOT A FUCKING PEEP. There are some posters here who conflate the great virtue of liberty with America. That is a mistake that the vast majority of americans make. Good ole boy seems to think that going door to door in america is different than going door to door in Iraq or Aghanistan or some other place "over there". He seems to be forgetting that american history teems with goons with guns going door to door and street to street and village to village and place to place.. If one posts here, one should be presumed to know of such things as:The massacre at Sand Creek, November 30, 1864. The Palmer raids.Kent State.Wounded KneeKing Phillip's War.The Trail of Tears.The mass hanging of Santee Sioux.The conduct of the Union army in Georgia (door to door and outhouse to outhouse).Jose Guarena.Ayisha Jones.Raphael Lopez.Luke Adkins.Gordon Kahl.Irwin Schiff.Sandra Cortez.Ira and Louise Milan.Robert Foster.James Moore.The phillistines have been going door to door from the beginning and american gun owners have more often than not either played a supporting role or could not cheer vociferously enough.
Excellent comments again Mava! I've said this before and I'll say it again, you should write some articles for TDV! BTW, on gold stocks, I've said this many times... they are not a sure thing at all... but i think, for those who like to gamble a bit, to put 10-20% of your portfolio in gold stocks may be fantastically enriching if we have one last gold and gold stock bubble before the collapse... but, there is no sure thing anymore, it is a speculation. No one should ever have more than 20-30% of their assets in gold stocks, though, because if I am right, they'll go up thousands of percent but if I am wrong they'll go to zero. I, personally, have about 30% in gold stocks and most of the rest in precious metals and hard assets such as real estate in Mexico and Argentina. I'll either be ludicrously wealthy (billionaire) from that in a few years or I'll lose it all... I'm fine with that.
Rudenewt,I think that if there is one thing a man owes to another man, it is that he should talk to him honestly, if that man is looking for an answer.I do not work for Jeff. I do not even subscribe to his newspaper, as I disagree with him on investing ideas. My precise disagreement is this: And by the way, you can take this to the bank. When you watch the investing tv or radio the next time, you will inevitably hear this: the lamentation of the fact that the gold stocks did not show the performance that was expected from them in time like these. Then there inevitably will be an offer for some expert to give an explanation. My own explanation since 2004 was and remains this: If you buy a goldmine share, then you buy a right to something you can neither hide nor defend, - a piece of dirt with gold under it. Today, the societal order will go down, and without it, only those as Capone can defend their rights. No one is going to tolerate your rights, so you would be a fool to invest in gold stocks. Jeff has connections that may help him and his subscribers to escape confiscation. I don't, and more so, I can not trust any promises. So, I don't invest in goldmines. I think that the lack of investment in gold producers this time is a reflection that I am not the only one correctly estimating what is coming this time around.On the other hand, I am very glad that there is Jeff. I have been virtually intellectually alone for a very long time, and it is very refreshing to see some human beings that I can agree with on so many points. So, of course, since we have similar opinion on certain topics, you could say I am defending Jeff. Or you could say I am defending the idea. It is up to you.So, this was a pretty hones disclaimer. This is a nice thing about people who entertain anarchism.The thing you wrote about anarchism is what the state says. Recall, that the sate also says that selling cocaine is a crime. The latter should be obviously wrong to you. Therefore, you then must ask yourself, why are you willing to believe the definitions of anarchism as given by the government, if you already know that the government lies.I can not expand much more on this topic. Ask Jeff, he has a western mindset (The difference? It is in the degree to which we believe that our free speech is protected), - I don't, so he might be willing to explain. The precise question that I refuse to discuss in public is exactly why the government feels necessary to say that anarchists will use violence. Or, you will come with an answer yourself, eventually, if you sleep on it long enough."I am personally all about free markets. Take out the government(s) and let the people trade amongst themselves." - you're describing anarcho-capitalism. Not communo-anarchism! In some types of anarchism, the trade is expressly prohibited. They are all called ... anarchism, because they all start with declaration of the intent that the government should be abolished. This doesn't mean there is much in common between them. Check this out, man: You're statist. There are many other kinds of statism. They all start with the declaration of the need for the government. But there is not much in common between some types of statism beyond that. I am a statist (minachist). There is a world of difference between my government and yours. So, the point is, one anarchist is not like the other anarchist.You are quoting extensively. I ignore all quotations. They are useless. You agree? No? It is called a fallacy. What quotations do is they substitute someone else argument for your own. That someone else is supposedly unarguable, because he supposedly has an unquestionable reputation. Which is another fallacy even if true, because a very smart man can say a very stupid thing. Ok? Can we talk like one man to another and not ask someone else to step in? I believe that since these questions are bothering you, you are waking up (just as I did), and you can argue for yourself, as you are no less capable of reasoning than any other man."We can fix this. You and me. I am not advocating running around shooting anyone. I am not looking for a fight. I know that freedom will not be given to me I must claim it and take it. I will fight for it if I have to and what
Well that is just silly. Talk about unwarranted generalizations.Mava, if they come for the guns, that is truly a fighting provocation, and one they would lose. We'd be far beyond nonviolent tactics at that point. Let the disarmed Brits try nonviolence, that's all they have left to them. At least we still have a choice.It's of course utter nonsense that fighting the government is the same as fighting the people. All governments are oligarchies. Some prefer to put makeup on a pig by calling themselves "democracies" or "republics", but that is just propaganda designed to keep the people asleep.Rudenewt, you are using the government definition of anarchism (propaganda). Try using the anarchist definition of anarchism, or look at the 1828 Websters (1828.mshaffer.com) before the state was so involved with changing the meaning of words. It means "no rulers", and nothing more. If you are all about free markets, then you must be an anarchist. The only way to have markets free, is if there is no one telling people what to do in them.As to tolerance, that is exactly the solution. It's strange to see someone arguing against it. I mean tolerance in the 1828 Webster's definition, with no connotation of approval. It means stopping short of war. Is that undesirable?I don't see why people have to be so doctrinaire. Nonviolence has its good points and bad points. Violent resistance has its good points and bad points. Used intellegently, they are both complimentary, not in conflict.
Spot on again!I'd wager a fair sum that most of the tough-talking Internet Militia types coming on here to talk smack proudly fly the corporate banner (flag of the USA) of their primary oppressor (USGovt), stand-up to salute the same banner while the corporate theme song (Star Spangled Banner) is played, adhere to the retarded notion that a piece of old paper (Constitution) written by slave-owning, political elitist, bigots ('founders') grants some people a legitimate right to kill, rob, and threaten, and I bet most of these flag-waving patriotards think 'our' troops are fighting for our freedom and that we should thank a vet for our 'freedoms'...These suckers are in la-la-land...
GoodOleBoy,"Bottom line, if it comes down to it I will send my family somewhere safe but I will not leave. I will make sure that they will be taken care of and do what I can to ensure the future of this country. "I guess it hasn't come down to it yet, GoodOleBoy? Then it will never come."If everyone that is for the constitution and freedom just gave up and left the country, what hope would we leave for those who do not have the ability to relocate or do not understand what is going on?"Hope? First they had voted all this evil in (without understanding), and now there should be hope? Universal Suffrage: One must reap what one had sown.
I will again refer to the unit that refused to confiscate arms after Katrina. Why do you think we have so many military suicides? Because they have a feeling of guilt about their actions. There are some cold blooded killers out there, no doubt. But I would also pointed out that even the military contractors that I have heard from have turned down large sums of money in refusal to operate here. You say that people comparing a domestic operation to the failure in Afghanistan is incorrect because the people here have more of a trust in our troops. Damn right, regardless if they have misconceptions or believe the lies told to justify their actions, they still sacrifice their lives in service to this country. Going door to door in America is different than going door to door in Afghanistan. You think that they will just raid grandmas house with complete indifference? They already feel guilt for their actions over there. I also dont believe you understand this country's connection to firearms, particularly the southern states. I have been around guns the entirety of my life and so have many of the people I know. It would require force to remove them, of that you can be sure. In that case, do you think that the military and police officers want their families to go unprotected, especially with the horrors that they see? Do you think that the military is completely on the side of the bankers? Several higher ups in the military are fighting hard for this country. General Dempsey is one of the reasons we are not in a full blown World War right now. They have all they need to declare martial law, so why haven't they done it? Why did Ron Paul get more money from the military than everyone else combined? We have issues with police brutality, yes. But I have met many nice officers too. And since the crash of '08 we have had a constant awakening of people, LEOs and military included.Bottom line, if it comes down to it I will send my family somewhere safe but I will not leave. I will make sure that they will be taken care of and do what I can to ensure the future of this country. If everyone that is for the constitution and freedom just gave up and left the country, what hope would we leave for those who do not have the ability to relocate or do not understand what is going on? To leave right now would be to retreat and leave your brothers and sisters on the battlefield. I would not make a martyr of myself but I will not give up while we still have a chance.
Dear Mava,Emotionally you agree with me but intellectually you don
Mava,Anarchist;1)A person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism2) a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.3) A person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law or custom.Anarchism;1) a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.2)the methods or practices of anarchists as the use of violence to undermine government.3) AnarchyIf I was an Anarchist why would I bother to agree to anarcho-capitalism vs communo-anarchism vs any other kind of anarchism. I
Perhaps we do have a misunderstanding, Paul.What exactly are you going to fight for, violently or not? To keep the guns? I don't think this was the point that Jim was trying to make. May-be this should have been laid out way simpler, - thinking of it just now, because it appears that the perception is that Jim was opining on whether the guns could be kept.I think this was just a foregone conclusion, that the could not be kept, and here is why: what exactly are you going to keep the guns for, again? What do you need the guns for, if we have already allowed ourselves to be enslaved?I am not a native English speaker. Perhaps, I am incapable of making my point. Say, you succeed (someway, somehow) of keeping the guns. And? You still a slave! Obama still treats you like a dog with his Obama Care.What, precisely, is the point of keeping the guns if you are a dog (me too)? What is there to defend? What, the affirmative action? The welfare? The bailouts? May-be to defend the official version of 9/11? Or the fractional reserve note system?And if you believe that all that could be overturned, then, then I want to know why do you so believe. Was it not delivered to us precisely on our desires communicated through our representatives? Our government does only things we want to be done! There is ZERO point in fighting the democratic government. Because, then you fighting the people themselves.And here lies the point that Jim knew and delivered, albeit sparing the calculations: Since we know that anything done here is what the people themselves desire, then it is ridiculous to continue fantasizing about the people raising up to resist the government. This is why, there will be no resistance to the gun grab. Basically, you are trying to figure out how the people can fight the people themselves. It is like waking up tomorrow to fight yourself! Why fight?Just change your life already if this is what you really desire! If the people didn't want their guns removed, they only needed to say so. In fact, the government of the USA would probably bend over and militarize every household, every sucker-plugged kid in the nursery.We always get what we want. This is the whole point of democracy. The only problem is that "We" here means majority, one way or another, and never "every one of us".
I have a few problems with this line you guys are taking.1) You are implying Americans don't have the cojones to fight. Problem with that notion is that it takes even more cojones to engage in non-violent resistance. If we don't have the starch for either, we should just bend over and take whatever the ruling class decides to give us. Is that your suggestion?2) If you read Rothbard's history of colonial America, telling someone in 1763 the whole country would be rebelling against the King in 15 years would have been thought completely insane. Yet it did happen. You think you have a good reading on the American psyche; I doubt it. Perhaps you are guilty of projection; you just can't imagine yourself in actual battle. Maybe you are right AT THE MOMENT. Doesn't mean you will be right 5 years from now. All revolutions result at least in part from high levels of repression. Most Americans have not yet felt that personally.3) I do hate defeatism. I hate people taking positions that aid the ruling class. You are indulging in "Divide and Conquer" tactics. The ruling class is no doubt snickering in the background.The sad part is that there is no need for this. You like nonviolence, well so do I. Virtually every non-violent tactic out there can also profitably used by those who are in the "cold dead hands" crowd. Why antagonize them? Does that help them adopt those tactics? It's a strategic error to multiply your enemies, to split your forces. The two techniques of resistance are (if practiced intelligently) complementary, not in conflict.Please, please stop sneering at those you should be making allies of. Stop doing the work of the ruling class.I have written down some thoughts about resistance here:http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle589-20100926-07.html
Rudenewt,"although I sometimes wonder how two anarchist could ever agree on anything"If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the endless multitude of individual views and desires naturally present in people, and to the apparent lack of enforcement in anarchist idea of society.In this case, the anarcho-capitalism actually has the solution, because it does not deny the absolute necessity of the institution of private property, unlike say, communo-anarchism. The private property removes the necessity to agree on anything, unless you actually agree on something with someone, voluntarily.Think of it. What do you need us agree on? Can you think of anything we need to agree on, beside of what we want to agree on?
Rudenewt,Emotionally, I agree with you, this would be the fair way. However, in practice, the exact opposite is true, - those who refused to take part in "repair" will always be the most welcome. If you would like to attach an emotional meaning to this fact, then you could try to think of this as of prudent men being rewarded. If not, - I am not insisting to call this good or bad, it just is.You want to limit both the effort and the payoff to those who are "all in", and this desire in itself is understandable, and I feel absolutely likewise. However, it is the practical implementation that always forces the directly opposite results. You will find, that where such rule is in force, - you would not want to go, and where you would want to go, - no such rule exist.Why?I think this is because you perceive the USA as your country, as if we all agree on anything. But we did not. More so, there will be those previously sharing your view, but falling out in the future, those being against and now joining, those being born and wanting nothing to do with this implied "contract with society", and so on. Thus, in order to practically enforce the rule, you would necessarily have to neglect the opinions of each and every individual and to enforce the common opinion (or, common good), which in itself will require a communitarian approach, as a result of which your society must necessarily degrade, and thus, there would be no one to apply your rule to.There is one way to implement such (justified in it's principle) rule: free market. But, the people will never ever agree to make EVERYTHING a matter of private property, and so, the justice can never be achieved.
Ok if I were an anarchist maybe I'd agree although I sometimes wonder how two anarchist could ever agree on anything. I am not an anarchist. I am an American. I have a country I love and I will not abandon it because it is being attacked from within. I will fight for my country because it is the best chance the world has for a beacon of freedom. It is not only worth dying for, it's worth killing for. And to be clear I don't have any real problem with anyone that wants to leave because they are afraid or don't feel freedom is worth fighting for. Where I have a problem is when those same people want to come back after the fighting is over and the battle won. Where I have a problem is those people gaining huge benefits off a system they claim is totally corrupt and should be left behind and yet they come back over and over to collect the benefits. I have never agreed with the with us or against us only philosophy but I sure do believe if you don't earn it you don't deserve it and I think in the future that is going to be enforced by the guys that earn it. Out with the old boss in with the new? Maybe. Or maybe the new bosses are going to be shown they were never really in control in the first place.
CF,"Somehow the "internal review board" manages to find them justifiable.."The same can be observed in the US. This is actually a pretty obvious sign of what is coming. The government can not get the military and the police on some meeting and just announce to them in plain English that there has been a decision to create a Praetory Guard. This will leak out.So, the only other choice the government has is to deliver the message ambiguously, through a lack of prosecution. The more obvious is this lack of prosecution, the more there is understanding among the ranks that they are different. If and when an order is given, it will be executed more dutifully than any normal order (to a usual surprise of those who expect defiance), precisely because there is also an understanding that non compliance will immediately strip one of his Praetorian Protection, and there will be nothing to argue as there was never a contract.This tactic has been used by every tyrant and organized crime leader since the dawn of the history.
Paul Bonneau,It seems to me that this has been the point of Anarchism, - the non aggression principle, which means violence acceptable only as far as it is executed to stop the aggression (and to cover the damages already sustained unless the offending side chooses to cover peacefully).The question you are asking at the end of your article has to do with an impossibility of anarchism, or at least, the absence of the evidence to the contrary. The fact that as a result of both violent and non-violent resistance, we see only another violent order being erected testifies to that.I know I am talking against Jeff viewpoint right now, but while I am very interested in anarchism, I have not found the answer yet, as to how it can be guaranteed that whatever the mechanism that would be chosen to exercise the monopoly on violence in anarchy, be it a government or free-market security, will not overgrow the capacity of it's founders to limit the advancement of it's power.Further, as it stands now, I am a supporter of minarchism. This is because I reason that it is more harmful in the long run to build an utopia that refuses to arrange ahead of time the relation between the monopoly on violence and the rest of society. This, in my view, is akin to participation in a venture which does not have contractual agreement on how to handle future contingencies. Such an utopia will find this things appearing out of nowhere, and will fail to act properly.The historical fact is, of course, that both the anarchists and the minarchists had failed without exception. This, is due to the fact that beyond the difficulties highlighted in the above paragraph, the members of both had no capacity to remain vigilant due to their own human nature. If this is ever solved, then, and only then the distinction between the anarchist and the minarchist choice will become real. If so, then I would be inclined to first try the minarchist choice.
I agree with Jeff. However, the situation isn't only in the US. The police in Canada enjoy the same high salaries and the freedom ro kill anyone at will without fear of prosecution. Indeed there hasn't been a single prosecution for all the murders they have commited. Somehow the "internal review board" manages to find them justifiable
'So blowing up innocent women and children far away is fine...but when they come get your guns you will say "enough!"?'My comment was not about me. It was about the consensus culture in America, especially the Second Amendment culture. And yes, someone rolling a bulldozer over someone's house thousands of miles away versus their doing the same thing to one's own house are as different as night and day in the mind of the typical American patriot, surprising as that may seem.
A wild horse will run away or kick you, if you try to do something "wrong", such as trying to place a saddle. But a tamed horse will do no such thing, because it is now incapable of interpreting your actions as wrong.If we assume that the US military and police and gun-owners will act as soon as the government does something inappropriate, then we must ask ourselves, if Waco was appropriate, or Ruby Ridge, or USS Liberty, or 9/11. Of course it wasn't. In the same way, the jailing of Irvin Schiff, or the destruction of numerous attempts to create a private currency.So, why didn't our "honorable" military, those former marines, those "vigilant" police, those gun-owners did not do squat about all that?Because, (isn't it obvious?) they were incapable of correctly perceiving the actions of our government as wrong. In fact, right now our government is exercising a complete fascism by establishing ObamaCare. Is fascism wrong? Or may-be it is has no conflict with what America supposed to be? Why there is no action?So will be in the case if the government decided to disarm the gun-owners. It will be piece of cake, a walk in the park. It would be easier than even torturing few Iraquis in Al-Girab.When someone objects and stands up, he will be presented to everyone as a terrorist, as someone chosing violence in a face of a full availability of an action in accordance with the representative system of government that we have. More will be said, things will be planted and the truth will be perverted. Child porn will be added to the mix, along with all the other nasty stuff.The result? Not only other gun-owners, but the very families of those shot down will abandon them. I guarantee this. The incident will become just like Waco or 9/11. It would be hard to know the truth, and those who will have a more penetrating eyes will have to chose between agreeing with the TV (and the majority) and abandoning the killed, or to go of a hunch, unconfirmed suspicion, and to retaliate violently.Invariably the first option will be chosen.Test your own family members! Tell them in secret that you are helping the MS13 to distribute drugs. See if they are CAPABLE of distinguishing right from wrong. Watch them turn away, turn on you, ratting you out to the government you are hoping to resist.This is only an explanation of why. But again, if you object then explain why there is no reaction to the multitude of wrongs that were already committed.Personally, I place the LEAST amount of hope on the Marines and such. No offense to anyone in person, as this is admittedly a pretty wide brush to paint, and of course I am just a coward, and do not know what I am talking about. They will not bite the hand that gave them the pride they could not earn by themselves. An entrepreneur has no allegiance to the government, for it only creates problems for him. A Marine? Who would he be, if the government didn't give him that sweet paycheck, if it didn't instruct everyone to revere him, if it didn't finance everything he ever touched? I've served, and I know first hand, who, what kind of person learns to refer to the military as hell, and what kind of person obtains a sense of pride. I had nothing but disgust. Have you served? How do you feel? Or are you just "hypothenticating" about this?Violence solves nothing. Violence is for defense only. When majority sees nothing wrong with the situation, the violence will be a wrong choice, that will bring about even worse.
It is true about 911 Truth spreading thru the ranks of military and police. Cops understand corruption better than anyone. The military is waking up to being used like toy soldiers for the Elites and Zionists. They are learning all terrorism is STATE sponsored. And they are pissed, seeing all the death, broken families, and wealth destruction. The Internet has awakened millions. All the evidence of the sea of lies the media and govts have spoon fed us our whole lives has been laid bare. The genie is out of the bottle.
It's arguably not either/or where violence and non-violent tactics are concerned. I have written about that here:http://strike-the-root.com/why-split-between-non-violent-and-violent-res...I also have a blog about it but quit because I could find no one who to talk with about it who was not doctrinaire about the subject.http://armednonviolent.blogspot.com/
It makes a lot of sense that the PTB are prepping for martian -sic law while they still have the pre-collapse ability to do so. While citizens are prepping with food and supplies, they are prepping with bullets, battle gear, tanks/fighting vehicles, drones and weapons.To think that you can outlast them or outfight them, even post-collapse is pretty unrealistic. Lower tax revenues are coming even if the reported thousands of new IRS agents are paid or not.Instead of ending up dead or imprisoned do some good for the people by being non-violent if you can understand the truth. The provocateurs are egging on the "cold dead hands" group to give them an excuse to come down as hard as they can on EVERYBODY ELSE! This will mean coming down on your family, too.See the truth and the plan. Connect the dots intelligently, not like emotional sheep.
"As is obvious to anyone who actually lives in this country and gets out occasionally, Americans love their military for what they represent, which would immediately cease to be the case if the military committed certain wrong acts, gun-grabbing being a well accepted and classically famous example. It would be like an individual you trusted until now doing something that reveals him to be working for the bad guys after all. "Wha? IF the military committed certain wrong acts...? So blowing up innocent women and children far away is fine...but when they come get your guns you will say "enough!"? Back in the 60's Americans got plenty outraged at the wrongdoings of the military. Seems that the tolerance for military wrongdoing has grown and devoured whatever conscience Americans had left.
Excellent article. I think gun ownership is important but you are correct in your assessment that as it stands today, people are only spewing rhetoric about standing up to the government. My parents left Communism for greener pastures and I am thinking of doing the same. If that makes me a coward, so be it. In my mind it doesn't and I don't blame any people for leaving the United States of Fascists!
A thought on THE MILITARY AND POLICE WILL DEFECT.... The military and police have all got families, extended families, friends, etc. throughout the country. If/when bad things start happening to those people, I would hope there would be a major dissension amongst the ranks.
The insurgent types don't understand. Freedom won Vietnam and Cambodia 20 years after the fact. The USSR caved the fuck in. We just have to stand back, find a new place to call home, and let the beautiful cruelty of nature take it's course. Empires built on that level of force and coercion fall due to a self-inflicted entropy. That entropy is human nature at it's worse.
Ever been to Texas?? I get cops and military that comment on my don't tread on me and come and take it tee shirts all the time. Everybody here is packing and hates the government!
Courts and laws,have not stopped them..Words and rallies not stopped them...Not paying taxes,when it is with held first will not stop them..and even if you do not pay..they will print what they need...so I guess maybe you could just kiss their ass a little...has in go along to get along... and that resort camp and the train to get you there is awaiting...have a nice trip....I think not....
"But Americans love their military. They
Show defiance and collect rain water in your own garden. They will have to take my rain water from my cold dead hands.
Your article says it all. You are right. Bottom line. There are alot of dreamers in America.
the karger/berwick viewpoint assumes the military and police are well-funded, have high morale, and a solid management structure. dissent within the military is high. for every story about how they're kicking the crap out of the american slaves and the slaves love it, there are stories of suicides in the military and top generals leaving. 9/11 truth is spreading like wildfire through the marines. my point is that i don't think the issue is as clear-cut as karger/berwick suggest. also, while the american people are slaves and do enjoy their slavery, let's see what happens when the lights go out and there's no food. the arab spring didn't begin until people were starving because food prices were too high. yes, i know htey just replaced one tyranny with another and the same thing could happen here, but the point is that the resistance will escalate as people get more desperate to survive. also, is it possible for the military to be defeated? will the US military simply win and rule the world forever? as we know, this is an imperial organization that is not particularly concerned with national boundaries, and has an insatiable appetite for more power and the enslavement of others. so will the whole world be enslaved by the american military? who can resist? no one? i think beating them is not entirely necessary, as empires self-destruct when they run out of money. US national debt closing in on 16 trillion......
Why rant about destroying this country because you're opposed to unfair taxes. Change the system. How? Support "GOOOH". http://www.GOOOH.comAs for the firearms, it's an American thing. Wouldn't expect an anarchist to understand. But, why would someone want to leave America, to live in a foreign land/culture where firearm possession is illegal?
Timing will be everything...Quite honestly, the biggest flaw that I've seen in the various gun confiscation discussions thus far is the exclusive application of the current psychological paradigm. With the temporary failure of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty, and the acceleration of systemic degradation throughout the Western World economies, it appears as though any type of perceived legal foundation of a gun grab may not be accomplished before a collapse scenario unfolds. If this interpretation does indeed turn out to be correct, then applying a pre-collapse psychological lens to a post-collapse environment would be an exercise in putting square pegs into round holes. In a post-collapse environment I suspect that Gerald Celente will be proven correct..."When people lose everything, and have nothing left to lose, they lose it!"In a post-collapse environment where virtually all of the former middle class is now living in abject poverty and lacking the basic commodities/services necessary for survival I suspect that many will be profoundly broken psychologically and will have very little left to live for. In that kind of environment I also suspect that taking by force what little the newly impoverished have left will not be as easy as Mr. Karger and Mr. Berwick are suggesting...
Post new comment