Adam Kokesh Cancels D.C. March (interview)

[sailingaway]

Are you sure he wasn't talking about Poe? Poe is out on bail, but Kokesh made no concessions and has no court date.

He said 'I may not be able to...' Maybe he meant his bail was conditioned. He may not have 'agreed' to it, the court may have just set terms, I don't know.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

He said 'I may not be able to...' Maybe he meant his bail was conditioned. He may not have 'agreed' to it, the court may have just set terms, I don't know.

He wasn't bailed and his charges were reduced to citations with no conditions which he didn't even sign (he said he was prepared to go back to the SHU over it, but they probably figured it was more trouble that it was worth, and he's already getting prepared to sue them over the whole thing).

He said he was probably going to burn them (citation papers) in DC at the Smokedown Prohibition event there.

 

[damiengwa]

Weren't you the guy that said he got turned on by Adam's biceps pose? You are not really impartial when it comes to Adam, are you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOqJ1F44_-Y

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Here's a podcast discussing the arrest & experience in the detention facility (from Kokesh's perspective), the change in the march, and an interview with Poe. Which will probably answer a lot of questions.

It's pretty long though, just over 1 1/2 hrs.

 

[damiengwa]

Maybe they just targeting him bc he was a MJ organizer. Maybe it didn't have so much to do with the armed march?

Maybe when he was inside they put him back into that sensory deprived room, strapped him to a chair, injected him with the mind control drungs and taped his eyelids open and made him watch flashing QR codes that reprogrammed him. Maybe Bester from the Psycore planted a fake personality in him that will be triggered at the right moment when he is dealt the queen of hearts, and the fake Adam Kokesh personality will be destroyed and the real Adam will come out and do something that will be the death blow of the liberty movement.

Seriously, you guys just go off the rails with your 'what ifs' about Kokesh. He's doing his best to organize something that will have the biggest impact. Maybe folks go to DC anyway, but we got the vids of him discouraging that. He wants state capital marches, armed or not, at the discretion of local organizers.

Quick lets keep destroying him. Call him a pussy, a turncoat a russian agent controlled opposition. Seriously folks, Adam is exactly what he appears, maybe hes got a secret or two, but who doesn't.

 

[anaconda]

I'm confused: Adam was critical of people two weeks ago (like Lew Rockwell) for being wary that "something bad might happen." Now Adam cancels the D.C. march because the "government might disappear people?" Isn't this contradictory? Furthermore, if a thousand or more were expected to attend the D.C. march, how is this "about him?"

 

[Tod]

I'm confused: Adam was critical of people two weeks ago (like Lew Rockwell) for being wary that "something bad might happen." Now Adam cancels the D.C. march because the "government might disappear people?" Isn't this contradictory? Furthermore, if a thousand or more were expected to attend the D.C. march, how is this "about him?"

Maybe while he was in prison, a little birdie whispered in his ear that if he goes through with the DC march he just might be gitmoed.

 

[anaconda]

Maybe while he was in prison, a little birdie whispered in his ear that if he goes through with the DC march he just might be gitmoed.

He has too high of a public profile. Too many in the liberty movement would go ballistic if he vanished.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I'm confused: Adam was critical of people two weeks ago (like Lew Rockwell) for being wary that "something bad might happen." Now Adam cancels the D.C. march because the "government might disappear people?" Isn't this contradictory?

"something bad might happen" is abstract, while "the government might disappear people" may be "something bad", most people were talking about some sort of civil war/massacre/bloodbath situation.

It seems, for better or worse, he wants to use the momentum of the march to decentralize it making it more "leaderless" and refocus it on a more fundamental problem (federal gov) than a symptom (gun rights infringements). His arrest appears to have catalyzed him to push harder. He had already tried to expand it from strictly a gun-rights issue to a general "civil disobedience" event before this more recent expansion, after the response by the DC Chief of Police (I think?). It may be arguable at what would have a more positive effect, or be effective depending on the goals, but he largely seems like he's intent on pushing the conversation forward as much as possible. Conversations about the federal government, individual rights, and peaceful secession, etc.

Furthermore, if a thousand or more were expected to attend the D.C. march, how is this "about him?"

Detractors, some supporters, and the media made the march largely focused on him as it's "leader".

 

[RickyJ]

He has too high of a public profile. Too many in the liberty movement would go ballistic if he vanished.

I don't think his profile is that high. And I don't think they care if people go ballistic, they have the capability to arrest all who give them problems.

 

[brooks009]

I thought about buying .freeadamKokesh.com as soon as I heard about the march. So why are people surprised someone bought the site before he got arrested? Use common sense people.

 

[Liberty74]

Glad this was cancelled. Having 5000 armed citizens thrown in jail and their gun liscenses revoked permanently will do us no good when the FED's swoop in for their final solution. Oh, and Adam Kokesh is controlled op -- hates Rand, gave up on Ron Paul, and now this. Wake up you dupes.

Gave up on Ron Paul so that makes him a controlled op? LOL

Ron Paul was NEVER in it to win it people. He had no real ambition of becoming President. He never attacked the front runner Romney because - it came out all after the fact - that the Romney camp threatened to go nuclear on Ron Paul with vicious attacks. Ron Paul's "in it to win it" message was just that, to educate the young crowd via college campuses by spreading the message of liberty despite that fact that the youth don't vote in primaries. So please, blame RON PAUL for his own loss and for giving up. Some of you still don't get it.

Adam does not hate Rand. But he will attack Rand when Rand is wrong. Heck, I will attack Rand now for his vote in support of Monsanto. Rand is one of the 71 sell outs senators who basically sided with Monsanto's position to not label food as GMO. Now eat your cancer!!!

 

[damiengwa]

Detractors, some supporters, and the media made the march largely focused on him as it's "leader".

BINGO! He's doing it for the movement. How can they accuse some one of organizing 50 rallies? They can't! Even the dumbed down public couldn't believe that.

Maybe he was also creeped-out by all them trolls coming out and spreading disinfo on him. Even liberty movement folks who just don't like the march and think it will some how be bad for the movement began attacking him personally. Have we learned nothing, even DR. Paul always said you can't control people. Did you detractors seriously think you'd stop the march by going on Anti-Kokesh tirades? You keyboard warriors who guard the sanctity of the movement?

Now he's opened it up. More people can theoretically come. It may be ignored by the media now though b/c its dispersed.

Lets look at the pluses and minuses and interesting points (PMI):

DC March:
Civil Dis that may have resulted in headline grabbing arrests
P: Could wake people up to the unfairness of the gun laws and the lack of application of Heller in DC.
M: Spun to make gun rights people look kooky, scare up the need for banning open carry or other gun restrictions
I: What is the point of open carry other than this? I mean who carries a loaded rifle in public for self defense?

P: Harder for the media to ignore: Armed marchers brazenly in violation of dc law, "angry" tea partiers, anti-govs...etc bear down on whitehouse, organizer saying its armed revolt!
M: Easier to possibly demonize
M: Easy to blame one person for organizing it, and to demonize him.
I: Won't they always demonize the liberty movement anyhow?


50 State March:
P: Does not depend on Kokesh, can't be blamed on one guy
M: Not as likely to achieve as much media attention
P: Can't organize a federal response and black bag all those people so quickly! Too many organizers, it would be totally obvious they were targeting peaceful organizers!
P: Can't provocateur all 50 states, government too weak and disorganized. Impossible to maintain plausible deniability.
P: Its been done before, armed assemblies at many state capitols, precedents set. people won't be so freaked out
M: Its been done before, a rally at the capitol for this or that. nothing ever comes of it. ever.
P: No longer calling it an armed revolt (i hope), but calling for political action to dissolve the Fed
M: Completely impractical in what they are asking for, the politicians in the state house are just as bad (see nothing will come of it)
M: No challenge to DC's insane gun restrictions
I: Lew Rockwell, Stu Rhodes, Jame Yeager, et al chicken littles can't say its dumb and will end in a bloodbath, or its going to be a violent revolt by an evil man.
I: No one in the liberty movements should be against this, its peaceful political action in furtherance of free speech, no precious laws being threatened.

Thoughts?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't think his profile is that high. And I don't think they care if people go ballistic, they have the capability to arrest all who give them problems.

They do have the capability to do a lot, especially the more isolated and disorganized (as opposed to decentralized) people are. Or centralized as a movement for that matter.

But ultimately they really don't have the capability to "arrest all who give them problems", and while they may be able to get away with a lot at first, it would ultimately lead to their downfall. This system runs as "smoothly" as it does because there is virtually no resistance to it, and it requires a vast vast majority to consent. There is consent as just about everyone is attempting to reform it, and the political process is able to largely diffuse dissent.

Adam largely seems like he's trying to push people past the idea that the Federal Gov can (and should) be reformed, and that people should start actively promote severing their relationship with it.

 

[anaconda]

At around 9:16 Adam says if these events have "leaders" then there are "followers" and the "followers," by his definition, are "not part of the freedom movement." This is patently false. When Ron Paul sent out emails asking for contributions for himself or various candidates, I stepped up and contributed. I followed. And contributed to liberty. I discuss with my friends, I study, and I vote accordingly. I did what Ron Paul suggested. The fact that I may defer to someone with leadership charisma is not antithetical to liberty. If the persons with leadership charisma and integrity of philosophy wish to inspire, this is a positive thing. If Adam had a problem with "leading" I would have preferred he came to that conclusion before rallying participants for his open carry march (before getting arrested he was not choosing to label all of those that pledged to march with him on D.C. as "followers" and "not part of the freedom movement"). He could have even given a speech at the D.C. march that said he was henceforth passing the torch to all individuals to self actualize and not "follow," or words to that effect. Rather than cancel the event after a week in jail.

I admire all that Adam has attempted to do, but I fear that they "got to him." This is deeply disturbing.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

He could have given a speech there that said he was henceforth passing the torch to all individuals to self actualize and not "follow" or words to that effect.

From my POV this is essentially what he's trying to do, and trying to say in that comment about "leaders". He was trying to push the idea that liberty is about self-actualizing as the leader of your own life. I agree with you that he didn't really put it in a good way, and that there's nothing unlibertarian about looking up to others for guidance, but he's a fallible human. Shrug.

TBH I'm pretty sure he sees himself as a sort of leader, regardless of what he says about it. Though he may struggle with that idea a bit.

 

[damiengwa]

And I don't think [the government] cares if people go ballistic [over vanishing kokesh], they have the capability to arrest all who give them problems.

No they don't have such ability, you misunderstand the beast. I blame Alex Jones, he makes the government out to be so powerful and nasty. Even people who don't listen to him wind up getting affected.

Do this exercise: Count the number of cops on duty in your neighborhood. Count how many homes they cover, look at the capacity of their holding cells. If one out of 1000 people in your home town went ape against the government all the "officials" who could, would flee to an underground bunker or leave the country.

That's all it takes. You can't round up the people like that. These liberals like Bill Maher laugh about the idea that the American public could fight off the US government if they wanted.

1) Most of the military would defect or stand down
2) if they didn't they are concentrated to a few bases. They can't patrol more than a few major cities, most of the country would become rebel territory
3) the daily jobs of the bureaucrats are all offices with known locations that are minimally secured. They could be raided, burned or shutdown by a small group of people.

The US & even state governments are not set up to survive and assault by more than just a few people. They are so freaking weak, they were afraid of that march, thats why they threw all the trolls and black bagging at Kokesh. It was their only hope. They knew that if they leveled the kind of responses needed against 1,000+ armed marchers it would terrify the public and they might go ape and it would be over for them.

They are so scared. Think about it. At the highest levels they are involved in cover ups or political targeting, illegal spying, kickbacks from special interests, bribes, murders. they get a thrill in their criminal minds from it. Testing what they can get away with, how far they can push it. They fear exposure, just like they said in They Live. Expose them and its over. Thats why they try to control the media and internet.

They fear the anger and retribution of the public when they are exposes. Thats why they at the higher levels all built bunkers and i'm sure have offshore arraingements. I imagine most of the Senate and House and Presidential staff just getting on a plane and flying out of hte country when SHTF. They have no death camps, no legion of brainwashed thugs. They really have nothing, and when their pants come down they are thru.

Its pathetic that this nation is actually currently held at bay by such evil yet so ridiculously weak people. A tribute to your methods, Feds! Must be all the dam government education. Public education should be banned in the new order.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

+1

http://www.mises.org/document/1218/The-Politics-of-Obedience-The-Discourse-of-Voluntary-Servitude

States are more vulnerable than people think. They can collapse in an instant—when consent is withdrawn.

This is the thesis of this thrilling book. Murray Rothbard writes a classic introduction to one of the great political essays in the history of ideas.

In times when dictators the world over are falling from pressure from their own people, this book, written nearly 500 years ago, is truly the prophetic tract of our times.

Étienne de La Boétie was born in Sarlat, in the Périgord region of southwest France, in 1530, to an aristocratic family, and became a dear friend of Michel de Montaigne. But he ought to be remembered for this astonishingly important essay, one of the greatest in the history of political thought. It will shake the way you think of the state. His thesis and argument amount to the best answer to Machiavelli ever penned as well as one of the seminal essays in defense of liberty.

La Boétie's task is to investigate the nature of the state and its strange status as a tiny minority of the population that adheres to different rules from everyone else and claims the authority to rule everyone else, maintaining a monopoly on law. It strikes him as obviously implausible that such an institution has any staying power. It can be overthrown in an instant if people withdraw their consent.

He then investigates the mystery as to why people do not withdraw, given what is obvious to him that everyone would be better off without the state. This sends him on a speculative journey to investigate the power of propaganda, fear, and ideology in causing people to acquiesce in their own subjection. Is it cowardice? Perhaps. Habit and tradition. Perhaps. Perhaps it is ideological illusion and intellectual confusion.

La Boétie goes on to make a case as to why people ought to withdraw their consent immediately. He urges all people to rise up and cast off tyranny simply by refusing to concede that the state is in charge.

The tyrant has "nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?"

Then these inspiring words: "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."

In all these areas, the author has anticipated Jefferson and Arendt, Gandhi and Spooner, and those who overthrew Soviet tyranny. The essay has profound relevance for understanding history and all our times.

As Rothbard writes in his spectacular introduction, "La Boetie's Discourse has a vital importance for the modern reader—an importance that goes beyond the sheer pleasure of reading a great and seminal work on political philosophy, or, for the libertarian, of reading the first libertarian political philosopher in the Western world. For La Boétie speaks most sharply to the problem which all libertarians—indeed, all opponents of despotism—find particularly difficult: the problem of strategy. Facing the devastating and seemingly overwhelming power of the modern State, how can a free and very different world be brought about? How in the world can we get from here to there, from a world of tyranny to a world of freedom? Precisely because of his abstract and timeless methodology, La Boétie offers vital insights into this eternal problem."

 

[sailingaway]

At around 9:16 Adam says if these events have "leaders" then there are "followers" and the "followers," by his definition, are "not part of the freedom movement." This is patently false. When Ron Paul sent out emails asking for contributions for himself or various candidates, I stepped up and contributed. I followed. And contributed to liberty. I discuss with my friends, I study, and I vote accordingly. I did what Ron Paul suggested. The fact that I may defer to someone with leadership charisma is not antithetical to liberty. If the persons with leadership charisma and integrity of philosophy wish to inspire, this is a positive thing. If Adam had a problem with "leading" I would have preferred he came to that conclusion before rallying participants for his open carry march. He could have given a speech there that said he was henceforth passing the torch to all individuals to self actualize and not "follow" or words to that effect. Rather than cancel the event after a week in jail.

I admire all that Adam has attempted to do, but I fear that they "got to him." This is deeply disturbing.

I think he may have had it driven home to him that the cost of this march would be more than would be reasonable consequences, and he decided the message of the march specifically, wasn't worth it. Since I think the march was not perfectly conceived, I have no problem agreeing with that, but I don't really hold it against him. Reasonable consequences for the civil disobedience would be about what he went through already, only on the right march, with ability to address the 2d amendment issue. He may have had it made clear that consequences far beyond the reasonably expected would be in store. No idea if his Dad's arrest played into this, but he says he stonewalled them in prison and maybe family was where it got out of bounds. No clue.

But this isn't 'fighting for liberty' v caving, it is, even if he did get pressured, 'this specific march where he would be handing them an obvious law violation to use against him' vs changing the march a bit. I won't prejudge future actions.

 

[sailingaway]

He wasn't bailed and his charges were reduced to citations with no conditions which he didn't even sign (he said he was prepared to go back to the SHU over it, but they probably figured it was more trouble that it was worth, and he's already getting prepared to sue them over the whole thing).

He said he was probably going to burn them (citation papers) in DC at the Smokedown Prohibition event there.

Well, I may have to listen to it again, I was doing something else at the same time.

--

OK, you are right. I was primarily listening to find out if the march was canceled and half tuned out after that. He said he did WAS able to be at the follow up event in June because he didn't have bail, and it is Poe who can't go because he has conditions. So they have another opportunity to arrest him between now and the march, I guess, at least one, since I have no idea what the rest of his schedule may contain...