TruckinMike
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,738
I subscribe to his newsletter - I think he's a bit confused about the left right paradigm, but I like his attitude.
TMike
Gabes website
TMike
Gabes website
What will we do? by Gabe Suarez
- Thread starter TruckinMike
- Start date
1000-points-of-fright
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,073
Douche meet bag.
I'm so sick of this "He's not my President" bullshit coming from the same jingoistic bubbas who spat words like "anti-American" and "traitor" at anyone who criticized Bush.
Athan
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,784
He's not my president either. In my view, election '08 was rigged by biased media such as Faux News in NH among others. I have been very anti-republican party even though I was always paleo-conservative. I have always disliked bush and was a two time Nader raider, and two years ago, the crap you just said would have likely come out of me.
However the difference is I have woken up to what America is up against a corrupt media, banking cartel, and immense voter ignorance.
I actually was reading this not because I am for violence, but I am worried a segment of Ron Paul supporters are getting to rascally and not staying focused on media and message spreading. Just me though.
Doktor_Jeep
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 943
Four elements of a successful movement
I see it going on all over again.
For an effective movement towards liberty you have to mainain 4 crucial elements. Think of it as the wheels of a cart.
Three of them:
- Economists (the right kind, like Austrian economics)
- Spiritual/ philisophical people
- Legal eagles and policy wonks.
And the fourth element:
- a well regulated militia
Now the social engineers have done a splendid job of making damned sure the militia is completely detached from the other elements. They work this from both ends: they have the non-law enforcement elements afraid to even use the "M Word", and they have the militia, which under the Constitution can be called forth to executte the laws of the land - the real laws and not the ones imposed by the corporation that pretends to be our government - having nothing by total contempt for the other 3 elements.
They do that on purpose.
And why?
Think of it this way: suppose you have a case against the state, such as the kinds that tax protestors have, and you can prove your case to the max, be totally right in every respect.
Win or lose you are still in their courts asking their permission. Why was there a case in the first place when you were right to begin with, and why are people who are right ruled against or hit with double jeopardy at times?
Because all laws are backed by force. Don't think so? Stop paying taxes long enough and men with guns eventually come after you.
And now we see a government that does whatever it wants. Why?
Because they have the army, the prisons, the courts, and the machine guns (while they let us have semi-autos and that's a stretch).
All law, and every discussion of politics can be boiled down to force or the enforcement of laws.
What does this have to do with us?
If a criminal, perhaps a home invader type, has suspicion that you are armed, they will not want to break into your home. Criminals, whether a thug casing your house or someone in a suit in Washington DC, know force above all else. Sure we expect, at least from the guys in the suits, some reasonable level of consideration for the rights to property and liberty.
However there are across the board violations of civil liberties and the seizure laws where you lose property without due process are common.
That is beause there is no consequence. You see, the home invader might get his head blown off. That's enough. But the man who wants to kick you off your land and hand it over to his developer friends does not have that outcome to fear.
Of course it's rare for politicians to meet that end over emminent domain issues (though it happens), most emminent domain cases are in fact amongst investors and competing developers, so it's all business to them. Rare is the case where a farmer or land owner who had the land for generations goes and wipes out a county commission because they took his land (though if I sat on a jury for a case like that I would aquit because he was responding to theft and a jury has the right to judge both the case and the law).
Imagine if nobody who had land taken from them could be sent to prison or death row if they, after having their land stolen, went and wiped out the crooks who took it? Would be have emminent domain?
I don't think so. And though this is a small example, even if only the jurys started to aquit in these cases but the laws remained on the books, you would see a lot less cases of people getting land taken from them in that way.
The point that I attempt to get at here is this: you can get the first three elements to argue in favor of life, liberty, and property until they are blue in the face. From legal to economic and philosophical points they can make every case for liberty from the beginning of civilization and be correct in every paragraph.
The the criminals will continue because they don't care about the arguments, they are thieves. Like the thug on the corner who considers breaking into your house.
So when the first three elements run from the "M word" as if the mere word summons Janet Reno herself backed by a fleet of tanks, then the first three elements will speak in favor of liberty until they are blue in the face, and accomplish little more than that.
Consider all those organizations out there educating the masses (or trying as the elections show) decade after decade. Bring up the M word around them and they start talking about how non-violent they are. Yes and all of them have decades of experience being activists and going nowhere.
And if they didn't run from the M Word, then for some completely strange coincidence somebody with no ties to any militia will blow up a federal building but the media will say that person had ties and show his picture every time the word makes the news. Couple that with a little homeland security (which was around before 2001, by the way) and yes the first three elements won't even admit to owning a gun.
Meanwhile, the fourth element, that being the militia, royally screws the pooch by doing everything wrong. Why do they do everything wrong? Because the militia consists mainly of trigger pullers and technicians who stink to high heaven at any task or activity that the other 3 elements can perform. You want to see a train wreck? Find a militia operator trying to be a political activist. It simply does not work. Asking some guys I know to educate people on Austrian economics would be like tasking Lew Rockwell and his group to pick up rifles and perform a bounding overwatch.
(Worst aspect is, I can probably teach them how in a few hours, but you will NEVER manage to get the militia operator to fly straight on the facts of economics).
But because the fourth element does not perceive or want to work with (will get to that later) the other three, they think they have to be activists too and so continue to do damage to the overall movement at various town hall meetings, commission meetings, and rallies.
And why does that fourth element not want to work with the other three? I said the enemy works on both ends. In addition to making sure the other 3 elements are afraid of guns and even talking about it to the point that they will do the same things for decades and not notice they are going nowhere, they have turned the fourth element into the biggest collection of knucklheads you could ever meet.
This is why it's hard to get a good team together. But this is an old problem and the centralized well regulated militia started to die out when people got this funny idea that you could get a table at a gun show and openly recruit - that alone is a magnet for cranks. And those agents and informants having a bad day trying to set up and entrap gun dealers will simply make a project out of you.
There is also some level of contempt, especially those who are veterans, they have for 'non-combatants". If I had a dollar for every time someone sat there and ragged me out for not having already gone to the nearest court house and "shot the bastards (and therefore all of Americas problems are my fault for being a pussy)", I could buy some Gen 3 night vision about now. There is something that military training does to people that makes them think that anyone who did not march around with a shaved head is worthless in every way.
This is why I just used the "shoot the bastards" example. You see, every time someone gets in my case about not single-handedly saving America by killing ring wraiths, I remind them (and this is because I listen to the other elements) that every judge I kill will only get a federal building named after him, and each building will likely be built in a town or city that does not have one. In other words, you make martyrs out of crooks and the tyranny spreads. That's the kind of enemy you have. Hence the strange coincidence of the Oklahoma City incident.
The people of the first three elements, I think, would agree. But they are accustomed to solving their problems with something other than a rifle. But I must defend the militia as well and state the it's more than simply a problem along the lines of having a hammer and seeing every problem as a nail, but the militia, being a target, is also infiltrated by provokers and informants. That's not as bad as you might think because of the other factor: because the militia is so demonized, it becomes attractive to the worst of the worst in personalities. These are people who will pretend to be your best friend and rob you blind. But this is not new. I know a few people who enjoyed being bullies and they became cops and everybody I ever known who exhibited poor judgement joined the armed forces bragging about how they could not wait to kill someone. (Most of them improved as they got older).
This is why whenever I am approached about "forming a unit", I tell people to keep it local enough with only people you know for a long time, and you must approach others, not let them come to you. There are a lot of people out there getting busted for all kinds of things who will do anything to get themselves let off. If that means burying pipe bombs on your land or dropping machine gun parts in your gun case, they will do it. Some do it for the money as well as getting off for selling those drugs or molesting that kid.
The combination of the four elements is crucial to success of the overall freedom movement. If it was all militia all the time, it would fail and not only because someone with no ties to the militia will blow up a federal building but get the militia blamed for it, but because the trigger pullers, if the entire thing was left up to them, would not know what to do next. You risk ending up with something along the lines of the French Revolution. It could be said for the other elements. Economics are mainly threory: there is no solid feedback loop and how do you implement economic theory without laws? You need some laws to protect contracts? But leave it up to the legal eagles alone, and you might get too many laws with complex addendums. However while the spirit of a law is for protecting, the letter of the law without spirit can kill. Therefore you need that element of philosophy and spirituality. Without them you get complex rigid laws that do more damage than good while incorrectly protecting economic theory that is not properly understood. But if you get the economists, spiritual, and legal all working together, without law enFORCEment they can be right all of the time, having the best ideals and correct plans in balance, and still go nowhere because the criminals will still do whatever they want.
(Does that feel like a familiar arrangement?)
Think of it this way: if you are a criminal and you know you can smack down anyone who opposes you, any time, and get away with it, and the opposition is always touting a disclaimer about how non-violent they are, will you play nice?
I cannot blame the first three elements for their fear of the M word given the psyops and social engineering in place. And frankly the fourth element does a very poor job of giving the first three elements any feeling of security. The fourth element would be more effective if they trained more and spent less time trying to be activists, and that could happen if they shut up and realized that the tasks of economy, politics, and law are best left to smarter people (and asking most of the guys I have dealt with to accept that there are people who are smarter is asking waaaay too much) and paid attention to what they are here for. Fact is that when the day comes that a Patrick Henry styled speech means getting hauled off, those inclined to make it might shut up because they cannot garuntee that such action would meet a Concord Green styled resistance.
To summarize: a movement needs those four elements, within each people have to do two main things: put aside their differences and accept that they need to specialize in their element and trust the others to do their part. For example, if you want to be a trigger puller but are better at citing case law than hitting a target, then you are out of your element. The guys who can hit that target need you, and you will need them. (though everybody should know how to point shoot at close range and use a magnum - for personal defense).
I see it going on all over again.
For an effective movement towards liberty you have to mainain 4 crucial elements. Think of it as the wheels of a cart.
Three of them:
- Economists (the right kind, like Austrian economics)
- Spiritual/ philisophical people
- Legal eagles and policy wonks.
And the fourth element:
- a well regulated militia
Now the social engineers have done a splendid job of making damned sure the militia is completely detached from the other elements. They work this from both ends: they have the non-law enforcement elements afraid to even use the "M Word", and they have the militia, which under the Constitution can be called forth to executte the laws of the land - the real laws and not the ones imposed by the corporation that pretends to be our government - having nothing by total contempt for the other 3 elements.
They do that on purpose.
And why?
Think of it this way: suppose you have a case against the state, such as the kinds that tax protestors have, and you can prove your case to the max, be totally right in every respect.
Win or lose you are still in their courts asking their permission. Why was there a case in the first place when you were right to begin with, and why are people who are right ruled against or hit with double jeopardy at times?
Because all laws are backed by force. Don't think so? Stop paying taxes long enough and men with guns eventually come after you.
And now we see a government that does whatever it wants. Why?
Because they have the army, the prisons, the courts, and the machine guns (while they let us have semi-autos and that's a stretch).
All law, and every discussion of politics can be boiled down to force or the enforcement of laws.
What does this have to do with us?
If a criminal, perhaps a home invader type, has suspicion that you are armed, they will not want to break into your home. Criminals, whether a thug casing your house or someone in a suit in Washington DC, know force above all else. Sure we expect, at least from the guys in the suits, some reasonable level of consideration for the rights to property and liberty.
However there are across the board violations of civil liberties and the seizure laws where you lose property without due process are common.
That is beause there is no consequence. You see, the home invader might get his head blown off. That's enough. But the man who wants to kick you off your land and hand it over to his developer friends does not have that outcome to fear.
Of course it's rare for politicians to meet that end over emminent domain issues (though it happens), most emminent domain cases are in fact amongst investors and competing developers, so it's all business to them. Rare is the case where a farmer or land owner who had the land for generations goes and wipes out a county commission because they took his land (though if I sat on a jury for a case like that I would aquit because he was responding to theft and a jury has the right to judge both the case and the law).
Imagine if nobody who had land taken from them could be sent to prison or death row if they, after having their land stolen, went and wiped out the crooks who took it? Would be have emminent domain?
I don't think so. And though this is a small example, even if only the jurys started to aquit in these cases but the laws remained on the books, you would see a lot less cases of people getting land taken from them in that way.
The point that I attempt to get at here is this: you can get the first three elements to argue in favor of life, liberty, and property until they are blue in the face. From legal to economic and philosophical points they can make every case for liberty from the beginning of civilization and be correct in every paragraph.
The the criminals will continue because they don't care about the arguments, they are thieves. Like the thug on the corner who considers breaking into your house.
So when the first three elements run from the "M word" as if the mere word summons Janet Reno herself backed by a fleet of tanks, then the first three elements will speak in favor of liberty until they are blue in the face, and accomplish little more than that.
Consider all those organizations out there educating the masses (or trying as the elections show) decade after decade. Bring up the M word around them and they start talking about how non-violent they are. Yes and all of them have decades of experience being activists and going nowhere.
And if they didn't run from the M Word, then for some completely strange coincidence somebody with no ties to any militia will blow up a federal building but the media will say that person had ties and show his picture every time the word makes the news. Couple that with a little homeland security (which was around before 2001, by the way) and yes the first three elements won't even admit to owning a gun.
Meanwhile, the fourth element, that being the militia, royally screws the pooch by doing everything wrong. Why do they do everything wrong? Because the militia consists mainly of trigger pullers and technicians who stink to high heaven at any task or activity that the other 3 elements can perform. You want to see a train wreck? Find a militia operator trying to be a political activist. It simply does not work. Asking some guys I know to educate people on Austrian economics would be like tasking Lew Rockwell and his group to pick up rifles and perform a bounding overwatch.
(Worst aspect is, I can probably teach them how in a few hours, but you will NEVER manage to get the militia operator to fly straight on the facts of economics).
But because the fourth element does not perceive or want to work with (will get to that later) the other three, they think they have to be activists too and so continue to do damage to the overall movement at various town hall meetings, commission meetings, and rallies.
And why does that fourth element not want to work with the other three? I said the enemy works on both ends. In addition to making sure the other 3 elements are afraid of guns and even talking about it to the point that they will do the same things for decades and not notice they are going nowhere, they have turned the fourth element into the biggest collection of knucklheads you could ever meet.
This is why it's hard to get a good team together. But this is an old problem and the centralized well regulated militia started to die out when people got this funny idea that you could get a table at a gun show and openly recruit - that alone is a magnet for cranks. And those agents and informants having a bad day trying to set up and entrap gun dealers will simply make a project out of you.
There is also some level of contempt, especially those who are veterans, they have for 'non-combatants". If I had a dollar for every time someone sat there and ragged me out for not having already gone to the nearest court house and "shot the bastards (and therefore all of Americas problems are my fault for being a pussy)", I could buy some Gen 3 night vision about now. There is something that military training does to people that makes them think that anyone who did not march around with a shaved head is worthless in every way.
This is why I just used the "shoot the bastards" example. You see, every time someone gets in my case about not single-handedly saving America by killing ring wraiths, I remind them (and this is because I listen to the other elements) that every judge I kill will only get a federal building named after him, and each building will likely be built in a town or city that does not have one. In other words, you make martyrs out of crooks and the tyranny spreads. That's the kind of enemy you have. Hence the strange coincidence of the Oklahoma City incident.
The people of the first three elements, I think, would agree. But they are accustomed to solving their problems with something other than a rifle. But I must defend the militia as well and state the it's more than simply a problem along the lines of having a hammer and seeing every problem as a nail, but the militia, being a target, is also infiltrated by provokers and informants. That's not as bad as you might think because of the other factor: because the militia is so demonized, it becomes attractive to the worst of the worst in personalities. These are people who will pretend to be your best friend and rob you blind. But this is not new. I know a few people who enjoyed being bullies and they became cops and everybody I ever known who exhibited poor judgement joined the armed forces bragging about how they could not wait to kill someone. (Most of them improved as they got older).
This is why whenever I am approached about "forming a unit", I tell people to keep it local enough with only people you know for a long time, and you must approach others, not let them come to you. There are a lot of people out there getting busted for all kinds of things who will do anything to get themselves let off. If that means burying pipe bombs on your land or dropping machine gun parts in your gun case, they will do it. Some do it for the money as well as getting off for selling those drugs or molesting that kid.
The combination of the four elements is crucial to success of the overall freedom movement. If it was all militia all the time, it would fail and not only because someone with no ties to the militia will blow up a federal building but get the militia blamed for it, but because the trigger pullers, if the entire thing was left up to them, would not know what to do next. You risk ending up with something along the lines of the French Revolution. It could be said for the other elements. Economics are mainly threory: there is no solid feedback loop and how do you implement economic theory without laws? You need some laws to protect contracts? But leave it up to the legal eagles alone, and you might get too many laws with complex addendums. However while the spirit of a law is for protecting, the letter of the law without spirit can kill. Therefore you need that element of philosophy and spirituality. Without them you get complex rigid laws that do more damage than good while incorrectly protecting economic theory that is not properly understood. But if you get the economists, spiritual, and legal all working together, without law enFORCEment they can be right all of the time, having the best ideals and correct plans in balance, and still go nowhere because the criminals will still do whatever they want.
(Does that feel like a familiar arrangement?)
Think of it this way: if you are a criminal and you know you can smack down anyone who opposes you, any time, and get away with it, and the opposition is always touting a disclaimer about how non-violent they are, will you play nice?
I cannot blame the first three elements for their fear of the M word given the psyops and social engineering in place. And frankly the fourth element does a very poor job of giving the first three elements any feeling of security. The fourth element would be more effective if they trained more and spent less time trying to be activists, and that could happen if they shut up and realized that the tasks of economy, politics, and law are best left to smarter people (and asking most of the guys I have dealt with to accept that there are people who are smarter is asking waaaay too much) and paid attention to what they are here for. Fact is that when the day comes that a Patrick Henry styled speech means getting hauled off, those inclined to make it might shut up because they cannot garuntee that such action would meet a Concord Green styled resistance.
To summarize: a movement needs those four elements, within each people have to do two main things: put aside their differences and accept that they need to specialize in their element and trust the others to do their part. For example, if you want to be a trigger puller but are better at citing case law than hitting a target, then you are out of your element. The guys who can hit that target need you, and you will need them. (though everybody should know how to point shoot at close range and use a magnum - for personal defense).
Doktor_Jeep: My comment was more, lets not act like we're ready to start civil war. Instead educate people as to what any proposed gun bans will/not accomplish. And maybe win them in court.
Here is a good vid of militia vs senate.
Were are winning the war for the mind in many ways. The name of this site proves it. Ron Paul was a candidate for POTUS, he made a splash. People voted for him even when he asked them not to. People listened and more do every day. Two years ago I wouldn't have believe anyone would listen, now I know they will. I keep pushing the message, people will be more inclined to listen as things get worse.
Here is a good vid of militia vs senate.
Were are winning the war for the mind in many ways. The name of this site proves it. Ron Paul was a candidate for POTUS, he made a splash. People voted for him even when he asked them not to. People listened and more do every day. Two years ago I wouldn't have believe anyone would listen, now I know they will. I keep pushing the message, people will be more inclined to listen as things get worse.
TruckinMike
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,738
At least I know which side of the wall you'll be on. Well said Doktor_Jeep.
TMike
TMike
Though my education - I have learned that our State Constitutions share the same language as the U.S. Constitution in order to preserve those same rights in State Code.
Enacting federal bans IS an infringment on States rights - which could cause problems.
Enacting federal bans IS an infringment on States rights - which could cause problems.
Doktor_Jeep
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 943
You miss the point.
You can't beat them in their courts. But making it clear that it does not matter what THEIR courts say (because they don't care what the law says anyway) is what protects your rights.
I know it seems like that would be accepting the law of the jungle. But the enemies of freedom already operate on that law. Why it takes them so long to simply get to total tyranny and just skip the courts and the Art of Lawfare is because they are outnumbered and looking like tyrants will have half of them killed and the other half hiding in Brazil (until the letters of Marque and Reprisal catch up to them).
So incredibly true. Even though they seem big, they really aren't. They are outnumbered. The only way they can get us to accept enslavement is gradually conditioning us into thinking it's all normal, all the while constantly telling us we're free.
Kinda like telling a lie long enough....
Pericles
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
I'll repeat my first post on the site -
"Good Arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law." - Niccolo Machiavelli "The Prince"
When the SCOTUS was looking at the Heller case, do you think the consequences of making 75 to 100 million armed citizens subject to gun confiscation entered the minds of the justices?
At some point, a state or even a county somewhere is going to say "enough" and it then needs to call forth the Militia to enforce the Constitution of the United States.
It will be our duty to answer that call.
"Good Arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law." - Niccolo Machiavelli "The Prince"
When the SCOTUS was looking at the Heller case, do you think the consequences of making 75 to 100 million armed citizens subject to gun confiscation entered the minds of the justices?
At some point, a state or even a county somewhere is going to say "enough" and it then needs to call forth the Militia to enforce the Constitution of the United States.
It will be our duty to answer that call.
Doktor_Jeep
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 943
Though seemingly off topic I like to point out that people are slaves but they don't know it.
One need only compare the 1950s to the present. Back then one man working a 40 hour week could earn enough to support a family, and he would have a home and a car too, usually in a decent place. If he wanted more he worked more and had more money.
Now you have men of the same age renting rooms because they cannot get their own apartment. If there is marriage or family involved, BOTH spouses are working their asses off and still struggling.
Tell me that is not slavery.
I have as many enemies amongst so-called patriots who, especially during the Bush years, would call me a kook for citing that they are slaves. What is probably most depressing is that these people think that because they own a rifle they are still free. What is really going on is they just come for that last. All other Amendments are trashed and 2A hangs by a thread. The further joke on them is that while they are allowed to have their little semi-auto the police state is gearing up with machine guns, kevlar suits and armored vehicles. But these worthless idiots will sit there and call me a tin foil hatter when I show them actual stats that prove what slaves they are.
This is why the notion that we will all be hauled off to labor camps is something not readily agreed upon. It's not a dissapation or state of denial but a recognition that if they simply haul us to labor camps, then we will know for certain we are slaves. The present system is a perfect deception. Bubba still has his sports game and wide-screen and truck - all on credit. Gets the one day off in the week to watch that game and half his friends ain't there because they had to work that day. He thinks he is free and will make fun of you for trying to tell him otherwise.
In the end there will be nothing to defend with our guns, and the PTB fully intends to make the entire gun rights issue look like a bunch of old cranks crying about their useless collections. Liberty, the ideas thereof, are already completely missed on every other topic generally from free expression to finance, so they will attempt to make it look like a property issue, and those who resist made to look like they are too mean spirited to care enough about the cheeeldren and get a different hobby. (Probably racists too for resisting the skin color of The One).
Many of us however will die as we had lived: not giving a shit about what ignorant sheeple think about us.
No it isn't. When you are owned as property the owner has some interest in your well-being.
ihsv
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,932
He only has interest in your well-being IF you are valuable and/or difficult to replace. We have 0 value as individuals, and there will always be another schmuck to take our place.
That was my conclusion.
eOs
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,880
Dr Jeep, I have a couple questions for you:
1) You compare the people of the 1950's to the people of today. In doing so, you state that they are not slaves but we are because the shift in struggle is now greater. How is this so?
2)Force is used as stability as well. If changing our system was too easy, rulers couldn't rule, the law would never be upheld, and the more brutal of ideologists would rise up and be able to take control. How can you have a system that is better off now that doesn't exert its force to enforce itself?
3) I am all for changing the system as it currently is, but doing it from the inside out is probably the best way to accomplish our goals. Taking control of the republican party, getting more parties on the ballot for more choice, and ending all the bad things that happen in our government. People are quick to rise up and destroy what they see as immoral and unjust, but rarely do they have a solid plan as to what to do after they have completed their goal of toppling the government other than exerting their own power over the people now. What would be the course of action you would take after you took control of the power zones: education, organizations, government positions, etc?
1) You compare the people of the 1950's to the people of today. In doing so, you state that they are not slaves but we are because the shift in struggle is now greater. How is this so?
2)Force is used as stability as well. If changing our system was too easy, rulers couldn't rule, the law would never be upheld, and the more brutal of ideologists would rise up and be able to take control. How can you have a system that is better off now that doesn't exert its force to enforce itself?
3) I am all for changing the system as it currently is, but doing it from the inside out is probably the best way to accomplish our goals. Taking control of the republican party, getting more parties on the ballot for more choice, and ending all the bad things that happen in our government. People are quick to rise up and destroy what they see as immoral and unjust, but rarely do they have a solid plan as to what to do after they have completed their goal of toppling the government other than exerting their own power over the people now. What would be the course of action you would take after you took control of the power zones: education, organizations, government positions, etc?
Doktor_Jeep
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 943
Oh crap that hideous green thing is a smiley?
1. It's simple: make the comparison. How does a man of, say, 30 live today compared to one at the same age in 1955? And if differing examples in each time frame could be found, then what level of difficulty would those cases have of changing their situation? And we went from 1 earner households to 2 earner households, which means a lot of money is being made out there but yet there is still a lot of struggling going on. I am not using the single urban latte-slurper who can eat sushi 3 times a week, nor the master-of-usery suburbanite who can drive his SUV 100 miles to his city job every day, as my examples. I consider the typical Ron Paul delegate I know who drove to the convention in a broken down old car and had to sleep in it.
2. the word you could use is anarchy. The definition thereof perpetuated in the government schools is "Mad Max". However anarchy is better defined here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html
Meanwhile, ask yourself these questions:
- Have I ever used force to get money?
- Have I ever used force to aquire things I need?
- Have I ever used force to get laid (unlike that Doktor Jeep guy who even has to use force in his own wet dreams to get anything - and probably that green smiley creature too)?
- Have I had to use force to protect myself from others using force?
The average person can answer no to all those questions. Yet it's proven that, even in cases where you can get away with crimes - mostly the petty ones - most people don't steal or kill to get what they want. Criminals, when they know the intended victims will fight back, will also think otherwise. My point is that the criminals in DC and various state capitols have the same regard for the law as a street thug sizing up a victim.
The folly is when the people put in place to protect from theives and murderers become the criminals. Now comes the segue into 3:
The answer to 3 is "Democratization of force".
Recently at a meeting of patriots intending to "take back" the GOP, (And I just had one of the well known economists send me a short email about it that stated "They never had the GOP"), someone detailed to me how we need to "get control back and stick it to the bastards". How? You gain victory by doing to your enemy what they did to you? Perhaps that works on a battlefield but even that is arguable for any degree of success (it's better to take down the order givers rather than just have wholesale death and please the plutocrats who sell the ammo to both sides).
This is one of the points that Tolkien was trying to make about the One Ring. You perpetuate the evil when you think you can use unlimited power towards good. What you need is to pitch the damned thing once and for all.
Now about that force:
As dry and administrative as it seems, the biggest problem that liberty has is centralization. We have proven, America that is, that no matter what form of government that is ratified, no matter what laws on the books or the intention (spirit) of the law intended, when you centralize the money (central banking) and the force (standing army, federalized police, federal mandates manifested as state law), you will attract the worst of the worst in humanity who will use that centralized power to get their own way. Parchment protection of liberty is a farce because of that part of human nature.
But think of it this way: every animal born has some sort of defense. Dogs have teeth, cats have claws, hooved animals can kick. Even those not of predatory nature have defenses (turtles for example). All of the animals, the wild ones particularly, have wealth that comes only from their own labors, and that is acquisiton of food.
Because all animals have weapons, you might note that there has never been subjugation and usery in the animal kingdom, within each species. While a tiger might use a gazelle as food, you won't see tigers forming death camps or tiger tyrants taxing every gazelle killed.
But as a dog owner, Ridgebacks and Florida Curs (boar hunting dogs), when one attempts to take food from the other a fight ensues. (Female Ridgebacks tend to be "alphas" and Florida Curs are, I think, part rattlesnake). This only happened once. After that, the larger dog did not bother.
You see, both dogs can bite, and one might attempt to take from the other, something not alloted, and the intended victim fought back. Nature has provided democratization of force and it works quite well along the intention of nature and natural selection.
Unfortunately, we do not have this. And those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not. History proves this every time. So while it might seem like the "law of the jungle" if everybody was armed, the end results are better than they kind of tyranny that the human race is known for. We are fed these ideas that problems are caused because of weapons, usually that comes from those who will never have to give up theirs, and they require of us money, legitimacy, and at times blood.
But I need not cite cases. All that needs to be seen is history. When have people, everyday people, massed forces solely for the taking of someone else, without outside influence or driven to it by centralized power, through coersion, propaganda, or deceit? The vast majority of people, when left to their own devices, will not use force against others, but the base people who lack morals will use force when and only when they can get away with it. Look at the Nazi death camps for an example and you will note that the most despised war criminals from those camps outside of Germany were in fact of the nationality of the camps location. The nazis found sociopaths who were local to do the dirty work, and that they did with license of the situation.
I know that people strive for the other way, to think this is going to be some kind if utopia. The worst of this are those who think that weapons lead to crime AND that there should be a cop on every corner. The idea of everybody being in possession of a Main Battle Rifle with ammo might seem scarey to some. The wealthy plutocrats of the 19th century, their factories filled with exploited immigrants, were afraid of those exploited being armed. That's one of the first stones of the foundation of Gun Control. (The other is that people did not like it for Blacks to be armed).
But since it's not likely that your neigbor will wait for you to leave the house and rob you, or run you over with his car because he does not like you for whatever reason (killing you), or force you to live a certain way because he is either from the left and thinking you are too stupid to survive or from the right and thinking you are too evil to survive (and thus need to be guided by laws, all enforced at the gun), it can be argued that "There are always a few around who do that".
And when you centralize power and money, all it takes is a "few who do that" to do "it" to everybody.
So the one dog that has teeth amongst the others that do not will get all of the food.
Pericles
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,921
Very eloquent, Doktor_Jeep. If there is anything to be learned from history, it is that freedom depends on a citizenry trained in the use of arms, and has the arms available for use. The Bill of Rights is designed to function as the last and ultimate check on government power. The country's founders, having won independence by the grace of God, were careful to keep the method in place by which the people could alter or abolish a government that became destructive of the ends of securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Bill of Rights provides for those things necessary in order for the people to do that - communicate among themselves, organize and assemble in groups, maintain their property, and use that property in a self governed military organization.
Similar threads
