Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Brouhaha

Kerfuffle here.

Some related observations on the overall scene:

1) When the very few (that is, statistically approximating zero) of us who survive the upcoming North American War Games (a/k/a our humble piece of the New Thirty Years War) are sitting around a campfire circa 2040, then will it be useful to wank philosophic on many of the topics that occupy too many minds today. Today, the issues can be more crisply drawn:

Them: > 60% of the population, > 50% of industry via heavy regulation or outright ownership (e.g., auto, telecom, health, finance, electric generation, aircraft, energy production/processing/transport, mining, lumber, intellectual property, space, etc.), > 90% of media, > 90% of military, including nuclear weapons, >75% of police, and the Federal Reserve System, along with all organs of all three branches of government at the Federal level and the vast majority of states.

Us: < 10,000 active supporters (mostly men > 40 who are out of shape and/or varying levels of disabled) armed only with small arms and minimal ammunition stores, actively supported by no more than one percent of the overall population and a small part of a modestly influential "alternative media."

2) In addition to the superficial force disparity, there is the more significant fact that we "happy few" have, to date, provided our opponents with perilously close to zero reason to judge us as credible actors.

Do you doubt me?

Then explain the fact that in last spring's Window War, no more than 50 (much more likely < 25) windows were shattered across the 3.7 million square miles of our country.

Now those few broken windows did cause a wildly disproportionate reaction by the Powers That Be, proving once again the practical utility of asynchronous, asymmetric political expression.

But be serious -- do you really think that the Bad People have done anything but tweak their plans to account for a few more rabble than originally budgeted?

This lack of credibility in our opponent's mind -- that issue, and that issue alone, should be the focus, I submit, of any spare intellectual processing power possessed by the Three Percent.

3) To be blunt, the Bad People are out to destroy us, to enslave our children and progeny ad infinitum, and to take everything that we own. Worse than that, they have made the considered and fact-based judgment, based on our performance to date, that we are impotent cowards -- gutless capons too weak and too timid to act individually without seeking a "Mother, may I?" blessing from a distant stranger.

Do you doubt me?

Then read again Walter Mitty's Second Amendment and see, in the privacy of your own reading area, just how close it comes to describing the mindset of each "patriot".

Less talk.

Much more walk.

Or as the King put it:

A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me
Satisfy me baby

***

Come on baby I'm tired of talking
Grab your coat and let's start walking
Come on, come on
Come on, come on
Come on, come on
Don't procrastinate, don't articulate
Girl it's getting late, gettin' upset waitin' around...


Forward.

By any means necessary.

31 Comments:

Blogger J. Croft said...

So who wants to be the first to jump off?

Who among the Threepers-who were brought up law abiding, patriotic, having morals-who among them are willing to cast that lifetime of conditioning, and everything they've labored for, their loved ones to start a war? A war they will have NO support for, NO allies among whom they're looking for them. A war their ONLY advantage will be the time and place for their actions... IF THEY ARE ON THE OFFENSIVE. (Otherwise they will be just another militia whackjob with too many of those dangerous assault rifles making another WACO.)

Yet... that MAY be the only way-but ONLY if that person doesn't do it like everyone else before in that position has been forced to do.

IF there were such a person, such a event, then you would likely see the shutdown of the internet and the heaviest use of propaganda since 9/11. Hell they likely have all the propaganda speeches and scripts and graphics ready-all they need is YOUR name and headshot.

Either fish or cut bait you'd better have a hell of a better plan than making that last stand. Otherwise sell your guns now and get with their progr-no you'd probably be swept up sooner or later for owning guns and visiting this site and other like minded sites in the first place.

Not defeatist-realistic. Have a place to go, means to get there, means to get YOUR message out both using the net and through other means. Don't live where you're registered with ANY of the enemy registration schemes. GET. IN. SHAPE.

Figure out how you're going to take on the enemy alone-not just ambush sniping but in reaction to a dynamic entry with sniper and perimeter support.

Figure all that shit out NOW.

August 17, 2010 at 11:16 PM  
Anonymous Brass said...

Well said, J. Croft.

August 18, 2010 at 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the Internet goes down, the transmitters and presses need to go down as well.

August 18, 2010 at 1:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember this....once you pull the trigger you can never go home.

DAN
III

August 18, 2010 at 1:55 AM  
Blogger pdxr13 said...

Isn't this detailed in the first chapter of "Absolved"?

If they want you dead, it's how you gonna go: shot down on the pavement or waiting on death row.

Dead slaves don't work. Only the carefully identified and slandered (A wanted terrorist fugitive was cornered and died by smoke inhalation today after setting his compound on fire as a distraction for police while priests, negotiators and little neighborhood girls with kittens stood by helplessly.) will get a SWAT team. Even then, gov't ammo will be conserved. Nothing more to see here:Shop as usual.

It gets more interesting if they have your name on a list 30 days long and yours is scheduled for week 2 or 3. Ref: Blue & Red lists.

Cheers.

August 18, 2010 at 2:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have 2 things going for us in the short term.

1) Yes, they have 60% of the people or more, but are they worth anything? 75% of American youths can't join the military because they don't meet the standards. They also have those fine 30,000 out of Atlanta and millions more like them that likely will be more of a drain to them than a hindrence to us. On the subject of youths again, they are in worse shape than many adults. Schools are discontinuing their cross country teams because of lack of participation. For road races 5/10/15k, the entries of people below the mid thirties are almost non existant.

2) They are almost out of money. How can they keep their resources and minions without that key element? It will be difficult for them.

During the Finnish War of Independence (Finnish Civil War), the Reds had 60% of the population, held all of the factories, held Helsinki and the few other significant towns, and had at their disposal professional soldiers from the Russian Red Army, as well as a good supply of equipment. The Whites had none of the above, save a very few officers that had fought for the Germans. They, had, in fact, only two things, but they made all of the difference. They had love of freedom and initiative. You see, when fighting for statism, you're fighting for a handout. A dead man can't use a handout, but a free man would rather be dead than a slave. Those advantages alone were enough to allow the White Finns to defeat the Red Finns. Another quick history lesson: The White Finns started prepping somewhere around 1904 for the upcoming conflict that was inevitable. (The war was in 1918 for the uninitiated.) They did not initiate the conflict, they did not immediately launch a revolution against the Czar in 1914. They patiently waited, trained, and educated the people they could, very quietly, and and only stood up when there was a power vacuum caused by a new weak illegitimate central government.

Very likely, the collapse of our current gov't brought about by the reckless spending will soon provide the same conditions here.

August 18, 2010 at 2:32 AM  
Blogger Dutchman6 said...

Anybody so confused on collectivism as to seek allies with the Nation of Islam and Stormfront is not someone you can trust to tie your flank to. Period. End of story. -- Vanderboegh.

August 18, 2010 at 3:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mostnly fearmongering and wishful thinking. Yawn. Wake me up when it's real.

August 18, 2010 at 3:14 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

No one is talking about any tying of flanks.

Did anybody read any of the speech?

August 18, 2010 at 3:32 AM  
Anonymous justin said...

Yeah, I read the speech, and enjoyed it. Several times.

Not much about Stormfront or NOI in there though.

I can say this: I can see Mike's point about tying flanks. I just don't see any mention of it in Tom's speech. On a another note, let me tell you, I served perfectly well with some pretty morally repulsive freaks in the Army.

J. Croft said:
"Figure that shit out NOW..."
"Get.In.Shape."
I could not agree more. The show will begin when we least expect it. No time to prepare then. Or worse, we'll sleep through it.

I agree also with what I see as the intent of this post. #1 should be gaining credibility. It would be nice to see a post concerning credibility. I think I will devote some time to a study of this "credibility struggle" by resistance groups in the past.

The most effective group off the top of my head was the Sons of Liberty. And they provoked a war.

Justin
III

August 18, 2010 at 4:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You first, CA.

A rational, upstanding person will not act to risk their good life until they are about to have it taken away anyway. So, this thing is going to go all the way down to the wire, until some truly unacceptable policy is announced.

You remember a few years back when OSHA got the bright idea to regulate and inspect home offices? Remember the popular reaction? It was "no." People didn't write letters or march or even get upset. The answer was no because that choice was not on the table.

Ever more each day I expect a peaceful resolution like the Berlin wall falling, because the alternative of zombie hordes from the city has been credibly prepared against. You still need to get in shape, because you will be working long days rebuilding an American industrial base on a shoestring, after you can no longer generate enough foreign exchange to buy from China.

As for Tom Baugh's speech, I read the black/white hat thing as a literary device for Tom to talk about anarchist ideas while pretending not to advocate them in public. Like telling a lawyer that your friend has the problem so-and-so, and what advice would you give?

I think Mike needs to look up a dictionary definition for collectivism. Democracy, no matter what republican tweaks you add, is a collectivist lie.

Only religious believers are susceptible to nihilism. Atheists are fully aware there is no grand scheme, and have already found some other reason to be happy. Good grief, put down the keyboard and go do something you enjoy for awhile. Life is not a dress rehearsal.

August 18, 2010 at 5:58 AM  
Anonymous Justin said...

col·lec·tiv·ism (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

collectivism
any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation,(Britanica)

Collectivist= Emphasis on the whole rather than the individual. If one gets too far away from collectivism, one ends up in Baughville, or StarveMonkeyland.

As I understand it, the term was first used by a Russian anarchist to describe the difference between his views and Marxism.

It could be said that all governments are collectivist in some way. That's the nature of government. Taking from the individual to "provide" for the collective. It's all about power, as Mr Baugh states.

The question for me is, can any form of government be established that will not eventually succumb to the temptation to encroach upon the individual? I think history says no. So how much collectivism is acceptable? How many monkeys are YOU willing to feed?

So maybe while Mr Baugh is advocating a sort of anarch/individualist society, he is helping shift some individuals' thoughts on liberty and government. Perhaps Mr. Baugh is shifting the "Overton" Window ever so slightly back towards liberty. For that alone, he should be encouraged.

BTW, just purchased Hologram of Liberty. Looking forward to it.

Justin
III

August 18, 2010 at 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only religious believers are susceptible to nihilism. Atheists are fully aware there is no grand scheme, and have already found some other reason to be happy.--Anon@5:58

Your happiness will prove to be short-lived because with this nonsensical assertion you have earned yourself the unpleasant duty of defending the atheistic existentialist, Friedrich Nietzsche, against the charge of nihilism. ;^]

(Izzat you, Billy? When will you finally learn to refrain from positing universal existential propositions?)

August 18, 2010 at 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff Cooper once wrote that you can't solve a problem if you don't know that you have one. And, you can't win a fight if you don't know one has already started.

August 18, 2010 at 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This lack of credibility in our opponent's mind -- that issue, and that issue alone, should be the focus, I submit, of any spare intellectual processing power possessed by the Three Percent.--CA

How do *you* suggest we get our "street creds"? Are we to gun down a cop, blow up a building, kidnap a diplomat?

Admittedly, I am offering a strawman argument with the intention of forcing you to state your own position more clearly. There is no shortage of agent provocateurs in the militia movement and I would like full assurance that I am not dealing with one now.

If you want to demonstrate your street credentials, select any run-down neighborhood of your choosing for a reclamation project and let us know how it goes.

If you find yourself unable to operate in a nominally functional arena such as this, you will be far less able to cope well when the balloon finally goes up and the artillery rains down.

As such don't borrow trouble by provoking a confrontation whose outcome can not be evaluated with any certainty.

Regards,
MALTHUS

August 18, 2010 at 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"col·lec·tiv·ism (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
"

Bingo! I think if you measure the amount of collectivism over time in historical examples, you'll find that collectivism grows a fixed percentage each year, producing an exponential growth trend.

Finland. There's another recent model for how a financial crash in the US might go relatively well. A few years back Montreal had a freak ice storm, took down electricity for a month in some neighborhoods, but all was calm and peaceful. Whereas Katrina was done by the weirdos who were left after all the sensible people evacuated.

"Your happiness will prove to be short-lived because with this nonsensical assertion you have earned yourself the unpleasant duty of defending the atheistic existentialist, Friedrich Nietzsche, against the charge of nihilism. ;^]"

I concede your point that some atheists can be nihilists. I still think my claim is mostly true. I'm not Billy, but I hope to one day think as clearly as he does.

I believe the human species is utterly free of extra-human compulsion. As a whole species, we are as free as the anarchists want us to be as individuals. The believers didn't say Moses brought down extra-terrestrial zoning regulations about how humans are not allowed to live on Mars or zoom around the solar system in aluminum cans.

"So how much collectivism is acceptable?"

How much of a Mafia protection racket is acceptable? Zero. I think the proper goal of self-defense is to forcibly reject collectivism. In practice, humans can never drive the crime rate to zero, but things will get better if humans stop confusing crime (government) with non-crime (liberty). It works in the gut to have harmless bacteria displace harmful bacteria, but a 'relatively harmless government' doesn't seem to work in human society. Let's try something else.

August 18, 2010 at 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

"A rational, upstanding person will not act to risk their good life until they are about to have it taken away anyway. So, this thing is going to go all the way down to the wire, until some truly unacceptable policy is announced."

Bingo

"collectivism
any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation,"

Yes, and denying that means denying the very existence or legitimacy of a nation-state, or of an ethnically related national people, or - extending the principle to its logical conclusion - of the collectivist nature of a family grouping. I'm not prepared to do any of that. I judge anybody who does to be essentially insane, and it's pretty clear to me that - as admirable as his intents and principles may be, and as useful as his logistical advice is - VDB is too far around the bend on this particular issue.

I sometimes have the impression he is trying to put up a bit of a big bluff front and make things seem bigger than they are. When the Hutaree thing happened and he posted about how "We avoided a civil war today" my immediate reaction was, who the hell does this guy think he is? He doesn't have the ability to decide whether a civil war kicks off. None of his friends do either. If there had been shooting, that wouldn't have been the trigger, because 99.5% of the population of the USA would not have seen it as any kind of direct threat to them, and would have been perfectly willing to stand out of the way and let the law enforcement system clamp down on violent agitators.

That's the credibility gap. You can't go into bars and bring up these sorts of subjects and expect to find people who are willing to talk openly about resistance with guns. In 1776 "Common Sense" was being read aloud in taverns.

It doesn't do any good to pretend that one's ideological movement is bigger than it is. It is what it is. If it isn't what is wanted, there are reasons for that.

I'll tell you something. You really want a chance to get large numbers of men actively interested, find a way to declare war on modern divorce law and family court. Family court judges are already among the most likely to get murdered, and there's very good reasons for that. Tie this fight in with rights and infringements that ordinary guys have reason to think about on a daily or weekly basis. Abstract principles and philosophic talk aren't going to hook people who like watching American Idol each week; the population today is not the same makeup as the colonists taming the wilderness.

August 18, 2010 at 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

"A rational, upstanding person will not act to risk their good life until they are about to have it taken away anyway. So, this thing is going to go all the way down to the wire, until some truly unacceptable policy is announced."

Bingo

"collectivism
any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation,"

Yes, and denying that means denying the very existence or legitimacy of a nation-state, or of an ethnically related national people, or - extending the principle to its logical conclusion - of the collectivist nature of a family grouping. I'm not prepared to do any of that. I judge anybody who does to be essentially insane, and it's pretty clear to me that - as admirable as his intents and principles may be, and as useful as his logistical advice is - VDB is too far around the bend on this particular issue.

I sometimes have the impression he is trying to put up a bit of a big bluff front and make things seem bigger than they are. When the Hutaree thing happened and he posted about how "We avoided a civil war today" my immediate reaction was, who the hell does this guy think he is? He doesn't have the ability to decide whether a civil war kicks off. None of his friends do either. If there had been shooting, that wouldn't have been the trigger, because 99.5% of the population of the USA would not have seen it as any kind of direct threat to them, and would have been perfectly willing to stand out of the way and let the law enforcement system clamp down on violent agitators.

(continued - comment too long, blogger is barfing)

August 18, 2010 at 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

That's the credibility gap. You can't go into bars and bring up these sorts of subjects and expect to find people who are willing to talk openly about resistance with guns. In 1776 "Common Sense" was being read aloud in taverns.

It doesn't do any good to pretend that one's ideological movement is bigger than it is. It is what it is. If it isn't what is wanted, there are reasons for that.

I'll tell you something. You really want a chance to get large numbers of men actively interested, find a way to declare war on modern divorce law and family court. Family court judges are already among the most likely to get murdered, and there's very good reasons for that. Tie this fight in with rights and infringements that ordinary guys have reason to think about on a daily or weekly basis. Abstract principles and philosophic talk aren't going to hook people who like watching American Idol each week; the population today is not the same makeup as the colonists taming the wilderness.

August 18, 2010 at 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is another way to look at the athiestic anarco cap movement. One could posit that they believe in individual freedom and understand the meme space better than many others. Also they may be unencumbered by certain moral precepts just as the rabid collectivists when it comes battle. They are truely polar opposites. One wants to control everything while another wants to be left alone. Read into that what you will.

Why did the military hire you to do what you do?

Because they said I had a 'flexible' morality.

August 18, 2010 at 5:21 PM  
Blogger Sean said...

I don't believe any of us want, or will start, a war. I believe the OPFOR will in their usual, blundering, way, show their hand, and bring it on themselves. Arrogance always over-reaches. And pride goeth before a fall. The LAST THING they'll do, is back down.

August 18, 2010 at 6:13 PM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

MALTHUS:

Two replies:

1) Three rules

- Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead
- Nobody talks, everyone walks
- Say nothing except to your lawyer

2) Three questions:

- Instead of the ad hominem, how about engaging on the facts and arguments above?

- Or do you see the credibility issue as nonexistent?

- The offer stands on Baugh's book. Drop me an address and I will send you one of my copies gratis.

Respectfully,

CA

August 18, 2010 at 9:06 PM  
OpenID tensmiths said...

deterrence is one of my favorite words this year. if you're looking for the kind of credibility that carries a big deterrence factor, then you're right, it's not about the guns -- it's about the will to be a deterrent with whatever happens to be the right tool for the job at hand. as long as we are just individuals, no matter how well "prepared", we will be picked off one at a time. there would be a considerable deterrence factor if all three million of us could take action at the same time. but now we're talking about something on the scale of the government overthrow in the republic of georgia. the sons of liberty theme is the speech i didn't get to make. those guys were in it for whatever it would take. by any means necessary. how do we get a program like that going? what could we focus on to make one, quick decisive move? checkmate in one? and this is all rhetorical only. don't anybody try to answer those questions in print. we are already staring at the edge of "legal paramilitary activity".

August 18, 2010 at 11:20 PM  
Blogger J. Croft said...

Justin says: "I agree also with what I see as the intent of this post. #1 should be gaining credibility. It would be nice to see a post concerning credibility."

You know how you gain credibility? You DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO. Nothing less. Now, can you?

Anonymous, the beast will use their nearly endless ballistic discount to take what they can't buy.

Anon#2 It would be WONDERFUL if we could by some miracle not have an American Gottendamerung-which is what the enemy wants. Perhaps rebuilding from a shoestring wont' be such a bad thing in the long run. What we get for giving the corporations and public servants too much trust for too long.

Sean, then again maybe they'll get their war. Just find that one person who won't allow anything else taken from them...

August 18, 2010 at 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boston Massacre was in 1770.

When did the shooting start on the road to Lexington and Concord?

Five years later.

Even after the shooting started in 1775, when the Declaration of Independence get signed?

More than a year AFTER Lexington and Concord.

Even after Lexington and Concord, the colonists made one last-ditch attempt to make nice with England with the Olive Branch Petition in July 1775.

In 1861, the Alabama governor sent troops to take over Fort Morgan on Mobile Bay, but gave the commander of those troops special orders to not hurt or kill anyone because he wasn't 100% sure that Alabama would vote FOR secession.

It would look really bad if he sent troops to take Fort Morgan, and they killed the Sgt caretaker of the Fort, and then the Alabama legislature voted to NOT secede.

Even as he dispatched troops to take a fort from the United States government, the governor of Alabama had secret, just-in-case orders to hedge his bets if Alabama did NOT secede.

Because even he could not read that particular future.

Reasonable, sane people will not take overt, violent action until they see they have no other options at all left, and violence is the only path left.

And as for atheists and nihilism, yeah....got it.

Atheists never get to nihilism, except for Hitler and Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Jong Il.....except for those guys, atheists never, ever ever get to nihilism.

Check. Got it. Okay then

August 19, 2010 at 2:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CA, I think you are expecting individuals to sacrifice themselves for a huge group. This sounds awfully like you are waiting for Communism to suddenly start working. Why not try Capitalism, and find an approach that would compensate entrepreneurial men for the risk they are taking? 200+ years ago, one solution was a letter of marque and reprisal. This was an invitation for a "private" person to go after a rich enemy and take his stuff as a prize, which compensated him for his risk. This also tended to target the generals and bankers instead of the cannon fodder. I think Atlas Shrugged had a character doing this.

Rollory writes: "Yes, and denying [collectivism] means denying the very existence or legitimacy of a nation-state, or of an ethnically related national people, or - extending the principle to its logical conclusion - of the collectivist nature of a family grouping. I'm not prepared to do any of that."

I am. I reject your desire to dictate the legal terms of my family, marriage, healthcare, retirement, diploma, employment, land title deed, and so forth. Get your grubby regulatory paw out of my wallet and out of my life.

"I judge anybody who does to be essentially insane"

By what criteria do you judge? I have an ordinary life with a professional career, and no criminal record. In contrast, insane people tend to be locked up in loony bins, prisons, or be dead of bizarre causes. They don't need normal lives.

"You really want a chance to get large numbers of men actively interested, find a way to declare war on modern divorce law and family court."

This doesn't need a "war", it just needs five million men agreeing to all stop paying alimony and child support on the same day. If you want the family court system stopped, then put up a web page and organize the civil disobedience.

"Atheists never get to nihilism, except for Hitler and Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Jong Il.....except for those guys, atheists never, ever ever get to nihilism."

If the counterexamples throughout all of history are so rare they only number in the hundreds, then maybe those counterexamples had something different going on in their heads than the peaceful atheism I think I'm talking about.

August 19, 2010 at 5:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Redo, comment was too long.)

CA, I think you are expecting individuals to sacrifice themselves for a huge group. This sounds awfully like you are waiting for Communism to suddenly start working. Why not try Capitalism, and find an approach that would compensate entrepreneurial men for the risk they are taking? 200+ years ago, one solution was a letter of marque and reprisal. This was an invitation for a "private" person to go after a rich enemy and take his stuff as a prize, which compensated him for his risk. This also tended to target the generals and bankers instead of the cannon fodder. I think Atlas Shrugged had a character doing this.

Rollory writes: "Yes, and denying [collectivism] means denying the very existence or legitimacy of a nation-state, or of an ethnically related national people, or - extending the principle to its logical conclusion - of the collectivist nature of a family grouping. I'm not prepared to do any of that."

I am. I reject your desire to dictate the legal terms of my family, marriage, healthcare, retirement, diploma, employment, land title deed, and so forth. Get your grubby regulatory paw out of my wallet and out of my life.

"I judge anybody who does to be essentially insane"

By what criteria do you judge? I have an ordinary life with a professional career, and no criminal record. In contrast, insane people tend to be locked up in loony bins, prisons, or be dead of bizarre causes. They don't need normal lives.

(continued)

August 19, 2010 at 5:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Second half)

"You really want a chance to get large numbers of men actively interested, find a way to declare war on modern divorce law and family court."

This doesn't need a "war", it just needs five million men agreeing to all stop paying alimony and child support on the same day. If you want the family court system stopped, then put up a web page and organize the civil disobedience.

"Atheists never get to nihilism, except for Hitler and Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and Jong Il.....except for those guys, atheists never, ever ever get to nihilism."

If the counterexamples throughout all of history are so rare they only number in the hundreds, then maybe those counterexamples had something different going on in their heads than the peaceful atheism I think I'm talking about.

August 19, 2010 at 5:40 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

My only expectation (hope?) is that free men and women act freely in their own long-term interests as individuals, taking responsibility for their own actions if not publicly, then ultimately to the universe.

August 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rollory said...

"That's the credibility gap. You can't go into bars and bring up these sorts of subjects and expect to find people who are willing to talk openly about resistance with guns. In 1776 "Common Sense" was being read aloud in taverns."

Pardon me for saying so Rollory, but this is the equivalent of the 1770's tavern.

And it's seem to be getting a lot of "reading out loud" here on the net.

August 19, 2010 at 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

" I reject your desire to dictate the legal terms of my family, marriage, healthcare, retirement, diploma, employment, land title deed, and so forth."

No man is an island. None of this exists in a vaccuum. You can play Humpty Dumpty with words and your own definitions if you wish to. It will not result in a stable and lasting society. Certain of those things - family and marriage most particularly - are defined and controlled by collectivist behavior for good and sufficient reasons as discovered and tested over thousands of generations of human individuals each exercising judgement, not because of dark conspiracies that have never yet been defeated. You can reject this if you want to - feminists reject all sorts of stuff, and communists reject the idea that the profit motive can result in good - but that doesn't change the underlying facts.

"By what criteria do you judge?"

By those I perceive as revealed by the experimental evidence of history. I judge by the standard of the truth as it actually exists, as best I can perceive it.

I don't entirely trust philosophical arguments. I much prefer "show me". The absolutist anti-collectivist argument relies a great deal on philosophy that sounds very good. However I have not ever seen an example of it put successfully into practice. In this, it shares a trait with Communism.

"This doesn't need a "war", it just needs five million men agreeing to all stop paying alimony and child support on the same day."

Stopping Obama and the socialization of America doesn't need a "war", it just needs five milliion Americans all agreeing to deliberatley flaunt any unconstitutional regulations or authority for a day.

See, I can play fallacies too.


"Pardon me for saying so Rollory, but this is the equivalent of the 1770's tavern."

Possibly. I hope you're right.

August 25, 2010 at 2:43 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home