Sine Regibus

Told You It Could Be Done

2009-05-06T05:33:00.000-07:00

Proof that the pirates can be reasoned with, especially if you speak Money.

... they actually found time sheets onboard the ship after the pirates had left. "We could see that there was a time sheet on a particular person who had been onboard and dates they had been onboard and so many dollars per day, and then a total sum on the time sheet," he says. The pirates, in effect, were clocking in and out.
From this and other ransom situations, here's a typical accounting for a piracy operation: About 20 percent goes to pay off officials who look the other way. About 50 percent is for expenses and payroll. The leader of an attack makes $10,000 to $20,000 (the average Somali family lives on $500 a year). The initial investor — who put in $250,000 of seed capital — gets 30 percent, sometimes up to $500,000.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2009/05/journal-guerrilla-entrepreneurs-take-to-the-seas.html

Again, I insist that investment of capital and more importantly, philosophy, from the west could turn the situation in Somalia from chaos breeding government, to chaos breeding liberty.

For Traditionalists

2009-04-20T13:59:00.000-07:00

As I noted in an earlier post, another meaning of "conservative" is "traditionalist," and I do not subscribe to such a philosophy.

In the past, this sort of conservative has accused me of dishonesty and other vices and character defects because I am a libertarian, and so an anarchist.

All libertarians are anarchists. I'll address this at the end of the post.

I want to offer the insights of a great man to these traditionalists who insist I surely must abide by the laws and agreements of "my fathers!"

...Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

It is now forty years since the constitution of Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two-thirds of the adults then living are now dead. Have then the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will, and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds, who, with themselves, compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing; and nothing cannot own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident. This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction...

The bastard liberal who (rightly) wrote that our fathers' contracts are not binding upon us?

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

On the necessity of anarchism (or, more properly, autarchism) in libertarian political theory, I offer this simple proof.

Libertarians are those who believe in, and so choose to maximize, human liberty. They recognize states as a boundary placed upon such liberty, and so oppose states.

Some people (who are not libertarians) think that a certain amount of government (defined at their discretion) is okay. A libertarian, as one who believes in maximizing liberty, believes in minimizing the state. A true libertarian believes in reducing the state to its smallest practical level, including and especially if that level is ZERO. Any true libertarian, if given a workable way to eliminate the state, would take it.

Somali Pirates as Fledgling Government

2009-04-17T19:37:00.000-07:00

Hypothesis: The Somali pirates represent the birth pangs of a new Somali government.

Evidence: Their actions are in no way different from those of governments. They have claimed maritime territory and assumed the right to guard it.

The proposition that, as a whole, they are vicious, lawless robbers seeking profit at the expense of others is both true and unfair. Allow me to elaborate.

They are, of course, operating outside of any recognized legal system, and they seek profit at the expense of others - but so do governments which we consider legitimate, so that argument fails on its face.

They are, in fact, structured and not entirely without their own "code."

They have never killed a hostage. They will not hijack the same ship twice. Many of them actually see themselves as guards of Somali territory, bringing in money to provide for the reconstruction of their devastated nation - Robin Hoods stealing from the prosperous to provide for the impoverished.

I will not defend that idea. I am simply establishing the premise that they are as justified as existing governments; and for the same reasons.

This is a remarkable thing.

Based on this hypothesis, we can predict several things:

The pirates will not go away; even if they are attacked, they fill an economic void that will need to be filled.
They will organize and systems will develop.
They will become more sophisticated - technologically, systematically, and culturally.
They will become bolder and, in time, may even establish rudimentary armies and police forces.

I see great opportunity in this, too. Imagine what the right incentives employed in the right way could do - this government is at its most malleable stage.

Finance and education, applied properly, could persuade the people of Somalia to adopt never-before-tried approaches to government. Aided by Western investment, order and prosperity could be brought to this desert wasteland like never before and entire new vistas opened for people the world over.

If you have ever said, "This idea is great but there's no way it would ever be accepted," I propose you think again. We have been given a tremendous opportunity: a new frontier to try new ideas. You owe it to yourself; if you think you have an economically and socially viable idea that can bring prosperity and liberty to Somalia, find the people who can make it happen. Find the financiers, the contractors, whatever it takes. My humble suggestion is that protective services for both Somalis and ships traveling through Somali waters will be essential and quite profitable.

It may be that nothing comes of it, but as they say: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

These opportunities are rare, coming only a few times in human history.

Consider the possibilities.

Realism

2009-04-17T15:18:00.000-07:00

I insist that fighting battles in a person's head is a very poor way to simulate scenarios. Our imaginations bring out personal prejudices, ignorances, and logical deficiencies.

For this reason, a strict, a meticulous, embrace of reality is the only way to guide our choices. Faith has a value of its own, but I pity the man who counts on a god in lieu of careful consideration to carry him through the fight we may face.

I rate the possibilities according to four scenarios, in order of decreasing preference:

A fight we don't even face. A battle avoided by having no enemy opposition.
A fight we can win.
A fight we can run from. There's no nobility in fighting a battle that is destined to be lost when running away (and surviving) is a viable option. Survival trumps defeat in order of preference.
A losing battle.

I bring this scale up to make two points.

First, dying in a battle one could have easily fled from is only virtuous when your side ultimately wins, decisively. The men who died for Germany in both world wars are mostly forgotten. Britain's soldiers in the American Revolution have vanished from memory. Our soldiers who fought in Korea are fading, and Vietnam is only recalled because it is so recent.

Had the Greeks not finally turned away the Persians, Leonidas would have been forgotten, his decapitated and crucified corpse nothing more than a curious relic of the Glorious Persian Liberation, as it would likely be called.

Weighing your sacrifice against the ultimate failing or success of your objectives is one thing, going down fighting when the back door is unguarded another. Dying just because you refuse to walk away is the mark of someone who's seen too many movies.

Second, we can't win a fight if we don't fight - and no one is going to risk life, limb and everything else they value in a shooting war if they're too scared to break a few bad laws.

Why is the line "Here and no further," instead of at the first infringement? Why will we not comply with the next law when we already comply with so many?

Unless a person is currently actively involved in the peaceful violation of the many bad gun laws (that'd be... well, all of them) I don't think they're going to be much use come a shooting war.

This isn't to say that every one of us needs to set up a back-alley Weapons 'R' Us. That IS to say that doing so, and publicizing it through the right channels, is good, but the risk is great and it's hard to fight from behind bars.

Why the hell haven't you gotten your hands on a silencer or a machine pistol, though? Even if they're useless, for you, they are a litmus test. If you are too scared to assemble an illegal gun, you're not going to be suddenly brave when AWB2 passes.

The plans are available cheap (free, if you really want them) and the parts aren't too expensive. A little ingenuity (replacing pipe with sections of a rifled 9 mm barrel, for example) can turn improvised designs into cheap, effective SMGs.

I lack the tools and skills to participate, but do what I can to collect and distribute information to support those who can. As a rule, I am completely unaware of what they do with the data, but I unapologetically continue its dissemination. That's my story, anyway. It's not like there's any evidence otherwise.

What role are you playing? How do you challenge the status quo?

Libertarianism v. Conservatism v. Liberalism

2009-04-16T02:47:00.001-07:00

Conservatives tend to conflate their position with libertarianism, and I'm just not comfortable with this any more.

There are certainly overlaps. I'm glad for them. I like a lot of conservatives, I consider them allies and our core beliefs are similar (some, not all, of the time).

I also have so-called liberal allies, and libertarianism at its core is a liberal position.

If you're not comfortable with thinking of yourself as a liberal, you're probably not a libertarian.

First we need to define conservatism, libertarianism and liberalism.

Conservatism has come to mean one of three things:
Adhering to tradition;
Favoring a restriction of government power;
Some esoteric collection of beliefs regarding fiscal and monetary policy, immigration, religion, etc.

Liberalism:
Eschewing tradition,
Favoring individual freedom,
Some esoteric collection...

Libertarianism has come to mean a bunch of things too, but the only definition I'm going to give any time to is the strictest one: a belief in the liberty of the individual human being.

You can't value liberty without also valuing life and property - much has been said about how those things are all manifestations of a single thing. Suffice it to say, libertarianism could also be called, accurately, propertarianism or vitalitarianism.

You'll notice that one of the definitions crosses all barriers - the high estimation of liberty.

Modern conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians all meet that definition, though in different ways - something like flavors.

The reason libertarianism is actually a more liberal-like flavor is because of the first sort of definition I gave - its position on traditions.

Libertarianism is not a new thing. It hasn't been done before. The old way of doing things might be more like libertarianism, but it isn't libertarianism proper.

Libertarians prefer no state - that's a fact. If a system whereby the state is abolished can be shown to be workable (I believe that it can) a libertarian will prefer it because it necessarily means greater individual freedom - the core value of the libertarian. No libertarian anarchy (I tend to favor Bob LeFevre's phrase "autarchy") has ever existed before, and so we cannot harken to tradition to build it. It just won't work.

So, because libertarians want to throw off old forms of society in favor of new ideas, I call it a "liberal" type philosophy. In fact, libertarians are the only true progressives.

But here are some major differences and overlaps between all of our different stands:

1) Conservatives like the Constitution because the Founders wrote it, libertarians like the Founders because they wrote the Constitution.

I totally do not care about the personal achievements, beliefs, whatever about the founders of this country. I don't even care too much about this country. I'm not a Constitutionalist because it's the basis of the country, or because it's the way we (supposedly) used to do things, or because America, hell yeah!

That actually seems to be an argument employed by some of these conservatives.

I don't like the Constitution because it's the Old Way, because it's how Americans do things, or anything like that. Those are all things that can be judged in their own right. If the United States were founded on a philosophy of collectivism, self-sacrifice and submission, I would be an active opponent of the United States, and that's, I think, one thing that I don't share with conservatives.

I only like this country, I only like the Founders, because in their own way, they worked to promote the individual freedom that I value.

2) Sorry, "illegal immigration" doesn't bother me too much.

From a tactical standpoint, I have to oppose all these amnesty programs because they mean less freedom for me in the way of lots of new Democrat voters, and in some circumstances greater demands by the government so that it may supply its "services."

But morally, I don't care about illegal immigration because I don't think it's right for any person to tell any other person that they may not do business in this area simply because they didn't jump through the right hoops. If you've got money and a willing seller, buy land and build a house. I don't give a shit which side of the fictional border you're doing it on. If you've got someone willing to pay, take the job. I'm not concerned with the fact that your name is Jose.

Rights to life, liberty and property are not constrained by fictional borders. And that means that morally, all provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to every human being in the world. I don't care if you're fresh off the boat, I'm okay with you buying a gun, etc. Rights are rights, they're intrinsic to humans, not conveyed or to be hampered by a government.

3) It's not okay to hurt someone because your culture is okay with it.

I'm not going to give Ahmed a pass because in his world, beating his wife is normal. My value for human life supercedes, in my estimation, his magic sky-person's orders or his sheik's edicts. I will not have beheadings in my backyard because "we should respect his culture."

Fuck that. His culture sucks.

Likewise, the people who argue that we need to prevent the legal definition of marriage from covering homosexual couples can piss off.

The argument "That's how we've always done it" carries no water with me. "Marriage" can mean a joining - spiritually, physically, legally, it makes no distinctions. It is a simple unification. Got news for you guys - gays are already marrying. They're just not doing it in the sense of forming a legal union recognized by the state as "a marriage." I think I've already talked about how much I worry about what the state says, yeah?

I'd rather the state get out of the "marriage" business altogether. In fact, I'd like it to go out of business.

4) I don't care how much of a "gun nut" you are, chances are excellent I'm worse.

I can and have made vocal Second Amendment activists look like Brady Campaign spokespeople. Sorry, but like all rights, there ain't no such thing as a "reasonable regulation." Treat guns like hammers. Anyone with the cash and the wherewithall to convince the retailer to sell should be able to buy them. Social conventions and peaceful means to prevent their sale to those who may use them to harm others are fine. Laws (re: bullies with guns telling people what to do) aren't.

5) Wars, militaries, so on just don't make sense. Never have, never will.

I don't intend to argue about the necessity of protection. Fact is, militaries and wars are funded by taxes, which are stolen from subjects. Right off the bat, that makes them a moral problem.

Next you've got the fact that all a "military" can do that private citizens can't is:

Fund its actions by stealing,
Acquire systems that civilians are barred from,
Conscript people.

None of those are moral. Stealing is bad, laws constricting liberty and property are bad, slavery is bad - but I repeat myself.

Wars are also affairs of the state, most usually fought for conquest or to loot the public treasury, not for any morally justified reason. They also tend to harm the innocent - something that is a moral evil. Collateral damage isn't an excuse. If you harm an innocent, you should PAY FOR IT. Anything else is abuse.

I expect I'll probably continue this topic in time.

From a comment on David's site

2009-03-07T19:17:00.000-08:00

This is the post.

Quoth me:

Paul W. Davis - all governments are armed warlords and gangs. That's what a government is.

You're just arguing that we ought to prefer your warlords. That's all.

Your "laws" are nothing more than edicts enforced at gunpoint by whoever runs the gang.

IF you accept that the government that governs best governs least, THEN you accept no form of government whatsoever.

Any and all alternatives are socialism, plain and simple. The differences between Left-Socialist (D-Connecticut) and Right-Socialist (R-Texas) are purely academic. In fact, they're laughable. They don't disagree on the subversion of the rights of the individual or the domination of man by "armed warlords and gangs," they disagree only on what those warlords and gangs should do.

I agree on principles, I DISAGREE on enforcing them. I have never met a law or a tax that I have liked. Not once, at all. That statement is absolute. I believe any tax for any purpose is a textbook case of robbery and should be dealt with as such. In fact I'll go so far as to lay down one of my essential principles:

All tax collectors should be publicly beheaded.

I'll stop hogging David's bandwidth and write more on my own blog.

Sine regibus, sine dominis,
John H.

I've got a big problem with "small" government.

If it's wrong for you to take money from me to pay for your dinner, it's wrong for you to take money from me to pay for a gun to "defend the nation."

I don't care if you think national defense is good or necessary - taxation remains theft.

I don't care if you think government does a bang-up job of paving roads - taxation remains theft.

I don't care if you think "there oughta be a law!" - taxation remains theft.

Here's a thought to try on:

Minarchists are the pragmatists of the "libertarian" movement.

Do you understand that? You minarchists are happy to throw away principles, throw away essential beliefs, and sell yourselves and your children up the river in the name of expediency!

I can see no difference - no, there is no difference - between the gun owner who voted for Obama because he thinks his pet project is more important than gun rights and the faux-libertarian - a Libertarian In Moniker Only (LIMO) if you will - who thinks that THIS bit of theft or THAT abrogation of individual rights is okay because it's super-important!

Pragmatism and its sister philosophy utilitarianism are the antithesis of libertarianism. If your ultimate goal is not the abolition of statehood in its entirety, you are not a libertarian, you are a socialist. The preceding is an absolute statement.

Mortgage Meltdown

2009-02-18T10:19:00.000-08:00

A break from the gloom-and-doom to point out something that we all know implicitly, but isn't usually said. Ask the next person who decries the lack of regulation that led to the loan crisis this simple question:

Why would a company that makes its money by lending money, then collecting it back with interest, deliberately make loans it knew it would never get back?

These companies wouldn't be making these "bad loans" unless they knew they'd be getting their money from somewhere. Period. Full stop. Find a better argument, socialists.

Stick and Carrot

2009-02-18T07:48:00.001-08:00

Everyone knows the old addage about motivating a stubborn mule with a stick and a carrot.

Are people so different?

I'm going to write up a post that'll give you the stick, and the carrot, necessary to move people along a smarter path. I'll start with the stick.

SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS GOING TO DIE.

Right now, we're balanced very precariously on the edge of a government-mandated economy. I will not condescend with economic evaluations of socialistic inefficiency. If you missed it in high school economics, you won't care now.

I'm just going to point out history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_USSR

I would like you to consider that. In the period from 1315 to 1892, there were three major famines occupying five years total. Significant events, for sure, but given that these were pre-industry, and the Eurasian north is not at all a friendly place to farm, it tells you something that these people managed to survive and in fact thrive.

In the time during the existence of the USSR, there were... well, it's hard to tabulate the number of famines. Not really possible to tell when one ended and the next began.

Starvation was a constant in Communist Russia and its territories. I don't mean the little farmers in Kazakhstan can't raise their wheat, I mean urban people, like our San Francisco or New York City elites, were starving to death. Your celebrities, if they weren't in one of the Gulag's prisons, were probably struggling to eat often enough to stave off halucination.

SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS GOING TO DIE.

Millions of people died in the Holodomor and the surrounding famines. I'm talking Holocaust numbers. This was just caused by the economic policies of the USSR.

Collectivisation guarantees another Holodomor. Constant shortage on massive scale is the inevitable result of socialism. When we collectivize medicine, as we have finally begun to do under the provisions in this stimulus bill, we will not be able to provide medicine for the people who need it. As time goes on, the problem will become worse.

SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS GOING TO DIE.

When we begin to collectivize food production, we will not be able to provide food for people who need it. The Obama administration will move towards this, I promise. If you live paycheck-to-paycheck, you will not be able to feed yourself or your family.

I'm not saying that generally. I mean - you, the person reading this, will be incapable of feeding your family.

I don't know how bad it will be for you, personally. There are many factors to consider. I can tell you, though, you will miss meals.

Your children will miss meals.

SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS GOING TO DIE.

These are not assumptions or rhetorical predictions. These are economic laws, applied.

Someone you know is going to die, either because they're sick, or because they can't eat - or possibly because they are going to feed someone else who can't eat.

http://eeuropeanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/cannibalism_in_the_soviet_union

I can throw examples at you all day, but that will distract you from my point. Someone you know is going to die.

Someone you love is going to die.

Energetic Materials

2009-01-16T06:40:00.000-08:00

Woo, boy, there are very few subjects so misunderstood. I'm going to talk about some major misconceptions.

The first misconception is that it is illegal to discuss them. There have been bills drafted to make it such, but they've been shot down. In fact it is perfectly legal to discuss how to synthesize explosive compounds, and even how to employ them. Otherwise Uncle Fester, Ragnar Benson, and all the other crapbook authors would be in jail (I think they should be for different reasons, but I'll talk about that later).

The illegal part comes with actually synthesizing them. Under federal (and often state) law, the production of high explosives is illegal. You will note that the production of low explosives (black powder, fuel-oxidizer mixtures, etc.) is far less cut-and-dry. However, the manufacture of a "destructive device" (landmine, claymore, pipe bomb, etc.) with any sort of energetic material is illegal, no matter where you are.

Also, if you actually plan the synthesis or employment of an energetic compound, you can be found to be breaking laws (specifically those regarding conspiracy).

However, the discussion of the chemistry of explosive materials remains legal.

The second misconception is that it's easy to make improvised explosives.

D'oh!

No, it isn't. Every recipe you've ever heard about in a Paladin Press book, or a Desert Press book, or a Loompanics book, forget about it, wipe it from your mind, burn the god damn book. Seriously, these books are of extremely dubious quality.

Specifically, I'll talk about Ragnar Benson and Uncle Fester.

Ragnar, firstly, very often does not understand the science behind what he's talking about. But so long as it works, that's not a big deal.

What is a big deal is, most of his crap won't work. Let's take, for just a second, "Homemade C-4."

Firstly it ain't C-4. Totally, 100%, completely different compound, with different properties entirely. That's like calling a Toyota a Porsche.

Secondly, agricultural-grade ammonium nitrate has, over the past two years, become extremely hard to obtain. Not Ragnar's fault, obviously, he couldn't foresee how things would change over the coming years, but the effect is still a rendering obsolete of the information.

On the other hand, ammonium nitrate is easily synthesized with nitric acid and ammonium hydroxide. Only problem is - nitric acid isn't exactly sold at the drug store any more, either.

Plus, the only AN compound that would suffice as a survivalist explosive - the only one with any appreciable brisance - is ANNM. That's ammonium nitrate, nitromethane.

Nitromethane is a strongly watched chemical, as well, and expensive to boot. Unless you piss racing fuel, you aren't going to be able to get your hands on a decent amount of this stuff.

So, Uncle Ragnar, thanks for trying but see ya later.

And speaking of creepy uncles, how about Uncle Fester?

He's a bit better than Ragnar when it comes to chemistry - I'd hope so, he's a chemist - but frankly he should stick to dope recipes.

Parsing his books would be a bigger pain, because of actually having to detail why this aspect of his procedure is wrong or this formula is bullshit. Instead I'll point out that he gets a lot of his information from patents.

Anyone who holds a patent will tell you how much information is often missing from them. More than enough to get you turned into strawberry jam or dissolved from the inside out thanks to nitrogen dioxide fumes, that's for sure.

So, in summary - this shit ain't easy. That's why I want to discuss it - to find a method that actually may work.

I Lied

2009-01-15T08:53:00.000-08:00

I'm closing comments on this one, because of the understandable desire to not self-incriminate. I'm leaving it up, however, because it's an important thing to think about. I'll approach the subject from a different angle in my next post. -John

Comments reopened at the advice of someone wiser than me. If you feel the need to insult me, though, don't. It's a waste of time, and you may be wrong, which makes every word apply to you, double. -John

I'm going to take a break from discussion of strategy and tactics and focus instead on logistics. I'm finding the thought of such a violent upheaval stomach-turning right now, and I'd rather focus on an aspect that always brings me joy - science.

Explosives are a militant standby, used by nearly all martial forces for several hundred years now. However, in a strictly controlled society such as ours, particularly if it becomes exponentially more so as it would in case of insurrection, they are difficult to acquire in quantity, and even if one could the cost would be unfathomable (probably 50-100 dollars per kilogram, minimum).

How would the Three Percent (henceforth III) operate in light of this? Is it as simple as doing without?

Hopefully Mike will weigh in, and I hope everyone else will propose their ideas as well.

Why Mike Vanderboegh is Right

2009-01-15T06:49:00.000-08:00

Over at Mike's blog at Sipsey Street Irregulars, and via e-mail, he has responded and raised valid points, as have others amongst our Three Percenter movement.

Mike points out, of course, that secession would encourage foreign enemies.

This is true, but a thousand square miles declaring itself sovereign is not going to give Beijing the courage it needs to try to take on the (still standing, in this scenario) military of the United States. Thousands, or in fact millions, of American citizens declaring their nation independent of its "government" (read: rulers) and engaging its military and paramilitary forces certainly will.

If territory from Florida to Arizona broke from the country, yes, that would immediately lead to the same sort of instability against which I am cautioning. The methods I will shortly propose will not.

Mike's Friend #1 says:

We are moving ever closer to Rawles’s Patriot scenario. The birthright of American Liberty will fail without resolute action. I absolutely expect Russia, China, Europe and/or militant Islam to take advantage of the situation.
This is all to the good.

I do not think that your critic has thought through his argument sufficiently. If he really agrees that a restoration is necessary and desirable, then why he would not support it or why he would caution against it – just because Russia, China or Europe “might” take advantage of internal unrest? He argues that we cannot engage in a restoration because of “what if” scenarios. This result of ‘taking counsel of one’s fears’ results in failure through inaction.

Certain sure the socialist tyrants of the old world would love to intervene to secure the riches of America. But were the enemies of the United States to intervene, it will drive huge numbers of fence-sitters to our side. The logistics of intervention, of sustaining credible, robust military forces across an ocean are significant. Let them come.

I must point out that Friend #1 (subsequently F1) agrees that it's far less a "might" than a "will" scenario.

I respond that I do not at all suggest that we cannot engage - just that the cost will be many times higher than thus far anticipated, and victory in light of certain contingencies is not at all a foregone conclusion. We ought to take intermediary steps before we resign ourselves to such a bitter situation. Also, you will find that it is not at ALL good if they do intervene.

There is a major difference in strategy between a conqueror and a defending tyrant. The tyrant won't burn his own fields or kill his own subjects when he can avoid it - the conqueror has no such reservations. Washington will not drop bombs on New York City just because there may be Restorationists within. Beijing will drop bombs on New York City just to prove a point.

Mike's Friend #2:

Saw it.

Agree that cold blood is needed here.

The central fallacy is that by standing pat, the evils foreseen by the author will be avoided.

The reality is that the PRC, a resurgent neo-Tsarist Russia, expansionist Islam, and the worldwide socialist cabal stand ready, willing, and able to dismember the country of our births.

Much progress has been made by each -- individually and collectively. Perhaps even a fatal amount.

Within our own country, legions of Quislings, sworn to the cause of foreign ideology, skulk ever closer to complete control of the three branches of government at the local, state, and Federal levels.

BTW, the most important priorities in my mind are preservation/restoration of your health and completion of the novel. Everything else should come last.

The simplest refutation has been made already by Churchill:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Remember too that the evil ones would have you stab yourself with your own pen. Beware.

Should you choose to engage, suggest that you contact the author and propose an exchange of correspondence, published for the world to see.

Your case is freedom.

His case is slavery.

I cannot but assume that F2 reads something not present into my writings. This is fine, and in fact I left a lot unexplored because of time restraints and for rhetorical purposes, so exploring the gaps and crevices of my words is fair.

I don't propose "standing pat," not at all. In fact I propose something that can be done now, and might in fact lead to that victory sans bloodshed. I also don't suggest that global-rule socialists (I'll henceforth call them the "NWO," not to suggest that they're a fiction, or conversely that every conspiracy theory written about them is true, but just because it's much faster than "global-rule socialists") will not attempt their coup regardless. I might even be willing to go so far as to suggest that with the inauguration of Barack Obama, they have succeeded.

I also would never propose that we should cease preparing for, or reminding would-be rulers that we are prepared for, what is, in truth, an armed insurrection. Don't read me wrong: I am a Three Percenter. I want Mike to keep up what he's doing. I want to help Mike with what he's doing. I just propose one final method to perhaps prevent the spilling of blood.

I do not at all see Mike and myself as enemy generals sitting down to put forth our respective proposals, but rather commanders on the same team backing different strategies.

One of the main points of contention regarding the "John Galt scenario" is the way in which the Weavers, the Davidians, and other "fringe" groups who have tried something similar have been attacked. There are critical variances that I'll talk about in my next post.

Why Mike Vanderboegh is Wrong

2009-01-12T15:20:00.001-08:00

I'm a big fan of Mike Vanderboegh, the man and the author. He's got a solid spirit and a strong backbone. Lotta brain, too.

With that said, the Three Percent restoration can't be allowed to happen.

I'm not saying it's immoral. I'm not saying it wouldn't work - in fact, the thing I like most about Mike is how he demonstrates how possible it really is.

I'm saying it's too dangerous. Not for the individual members of the Three Percent, nor for gun owners, I mean for the United States and everything it stands for.

Think about it - what happens when a nation dissolves into civil unrest?

Generally they fracture, and many times they are then occupied by an enemy force.

I don't believe that we're still two minutes to midnight with Russia, or with China. However, civil unrest in the United States would be a perfect excuse for either of them to capitalize on our instability. God knows what "U.N. peacekeepers" might do.

It's very simple - we won't only be dealing with the U.S. government, which we may be able to handle. We'll be dealing with every major military in the world.

I will explore the other options we face in subsequent posts.

Fifth Columnists

2009-01-07T07:51:00.001-08:00

Any "pro-gun" Obama supporters should have the decency to self-immolate.

That is all.

The Wheels on the Bus

2009-01-03T13:59:00.001-08:00

This will be the category in which I put the Fudds, "pragmatists," "reasonable restriction" folk, politicians who screw their bases and friends, etc.

"The wheels on the bus go thump thump thump..."

The Line in the Sand

2009-01-03T13:41:00.000-08:00

Reviewing a post from July over at The Smallest Minority, and the subsequent comments, one person suggested that the "line in the sand" should be deliberately ill-defined. He cited the example of the U.S.'s employment of nuclear weaponry.

This is an unfortunately common viewpoint amongst those who criticize the self-described "Three Percent." Yes, we should have a "line in the sand," but we shouldn't TALK about it, because that will encourage the enemy to test it, I assume.

This idea is built from a fatal fallacy, namely that which holds that vague threats are efficient.

For those of us who might have been bullied as children, let me ask you a question. Did you ever counter a bully's taunts with a vague "Stop, or else?"

What happened?

That's right, laughter. Maybe an "or else, what?" But the taunting probably continued, probably with renewed vigor.

There are two ways to beat a bully. The first is to be thoroughly disinterested. Look at them like a pathetic leper and go about your business.

The second is to stand up to the bully, tell him where the buck stops, and have what it takes to back it up.

You see, vague threats only work when they are credible. Without this credibility, you're a 90-pound nerd trying to look tough for the cute girl. No one's going to believe you, and no one's going to get off your back.

Gun owners are incredible. We fight amongst ourselves, some of us are willing to sacrifice others for the sake of being on the winning side. The government certainly does not believe that we might actually SHOOT BACK! Hah! These backwoods cousin-fuckers are all talk!

There are two ways to beat this bully. Only two.

The first is to stop giving them your lunch money, and just look at them like the leeches that they truly are. Talk to their girlfriend, eat at whatever table you want. Buy that unregistered Title II. Make one yourself. Forget about certain taxes. Pay under the table.

The second is to say to them, "This is IT. You're going to back off, you worm."

But if you do that, you have to be willing to back it up. That, I think, is the real problem with the "pragmatists." They're not willing to back it up.

Government

2008-12-29T19:19:00.000-08:00

Inspired by the comments on this post over at Roberta X's place.

I admit, I'm not a fan of this og. I don't know him, I've only read his posts. He might be a good guy, I do not mean to cast dispersions upon his character. I just believe he thinks things that are very wrong, immorally and dangerously so.

He posits the existence of a government is necessary because of the, well for lack of a word, fallen nature of humans. The logic does not follow through.

If people are good, they don't need to be governed.

If people are bad, the worst thing in the world would be granting a subset of those bad people power over the rest of the bad people, most especially if the method of selecting which subset of bad people will rule is by asking the other bad people!

It's really that simple. If people are good they needn't be subjected to government. If people are bad then they cannot be trusted to govern.