Tuesday, April 15, 2014

"There is no beating the State on the armaments question. "

Lew Rockwell writes:
The State Is a Jealous Gawd

The State wields violence as its daily bread. People who rise in the State either don’t mind killing, torturing, and caging to cow hoi polloi, or they positively enjoy it. Ron Paul is exactly right about what may happen to the Bundy family and their supporters. I fear it was a mistake for them to be armed against the BLM troops. There is no beating the State on the armaments question. How many millions has the USG happily killed in its history of violence? Only non-violent resistance has a chance to capture hearts and minds, as did the early Christians. Only non-violent resistance is right.

UPDATE:

Victor Ward emails to remind me of this Lew Rockwell post:

‘Untold Truths About the American Revolution’

Thanks to Laurence Vance for sending me this most interesting article by Howard Zinn. Zinn, one of my favorite left-wing historians, is always interesting, and sometimes right. He says:
We’ve got to rethink this question of war and come to the conclusion that war cannot be accepted, no matter what the reasons given, or the excuse: liberty, democracy; this, that. War is by definition the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people for ends that are uncertain. Think about means and ends, and apply it to war. The means are horrible, certainly. The ends, uncertain. That alone should make you hesitate.
It took me a while, despite my Loyalist ancestors, to come to the same conclusion about the Revolutionary War. It was unecessary, like the rest of our wars. For example, the king–a sweetheart compared to almost any US president–would have conceded internal independence to the 13 colonies, so long as they remained officially British. And as the examples of Australia and Canada show, with British colonies that became peacefully independent, there is far more decentralism than in the US, and far less militarism and belligerent nationalism. Of course, may they remain monarchies, and never become republics, for all the reasons Hans Hoppe demonstrates.

26 comments:

  1. Lew Rockwell is right. Think about how many times the ancient Israelites tried to violently resist Rome. Guess what? They failed each time and payed a SEVERE price for it.

    As people here probably know by my endless cynicism I don't think most people's minds are going to open (not right now anyway). BUT, I do think non-violent resistance in the only answer at this point. This "resistance" can come in the form of getting the word out. As for me though, since the vast majority of people are just too stupid, lazy, or stubborn to listen, I'm waiting until people are on their knees the hit them with the message. They MIGHT be more willing to listen since they'll be more desperate. Despite all the shit people have suffered under The Imperial City most are still too comfortable to care or think.

    In any event, no matter what your position is, trying to stand toe to toe in a violent way against the mightiest empire on Earth is sheer insanity! Don't be a fucking idiot people. Use PEACEFUL methods. Plus being violent will fuck it up for the rest of us. They'll only crack down even HARDER.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely right. Non-violent resistance will totally work. When CPS or some agency comes and kidnaps my kid, I will apply nonviolent resistance. Don't know how that will work or how it will go down or, for that matter, how I'll get my kid back but it will work. Heck, I don't even know what nonviolence resistance is when it comes to love of a child. Wouldn't ever want to screw it up for you to face the realities that are already in existence because they're indoctrinating my child; would be selfish of me to do so. I don't expect you to understand my lifestyle and why I would have the want to live and die by it. It's just not worth the violence to prevent 140 years from going down the memory hole. It's just not worth it. Just not.

      Nonviolence and peaceful resistance should be mandatory when it comes to the USG because governments are usually reactive and not the first of aggressor. Those Jews, Sand Creek and Magnus-Colorado, who were seeking peace with USG, must have taken a bad turn towards violence. Those ranchers in Nevada; they must've threw a rock at Mr. Reid's head or something to provoke the USG to "come down on them hard"er.

      I'll just keep reading libertarian articles, wearing T-shirts with anti-government slogans, stating how lame Krugman, and watching and trying to find libertarian meaning (minus Austrian economics) in movies because that'll show the USG that we mean business.

      Besides, wouldn't want to end up like that Jesus guy and his buddies. I mean, what an idiot, right? He got killed by the state. It's totally not worth getting your "brains blown out" - but good music video either way. But, wait he did it peacefully. So, maybe, I'll just avoid all confrontations.

      Delete
    2. And this people is an example of a fucking idiot. Taking things out of context and caricaturing what I said.

      And hey pal, good luck when they send 30 SWAT team guys with military grade equipment and an extermination mentality. What are you going to do, eh? Strike them down with a magic wand?
      Idiot.

      Delete
    3. First off, what is up with this rhetoric that the ranchers is directly taking them on? Give them credit where credit is due. If they had not taken up arms, we would have never heard of this until after the fact as often the case. I mean, that whole 30 man elimination SWAT team just totally obliterated them when they did took up arms. Secondly, it's the government and Reid that is going after them. Get it right.

      You said don't make it worse for the rest of us in the face of Obamacare, NSA, FDA, and so on. It's already is worse. If somebody does do something stupid and takes on the government, and supposedly makes it worse, then it would be nothing but a leak in reality.

      Taking CPS out of context? Give me a break, like I'm supposed to put away my emotions and do peaceful resistance after a travesty happens to me. Unless all this hollering about the Federal Reserve, wars, all sorts of intrusions is nothing but that - hollering and screaming. I wasn't saying take on the government in a parochial fashion, but I am saying is that this whole "non-violent resistance" isn't going to work either. There's no real solution in this article. It's just throwing the word non-violence at us nothing more. And, nobody said anything about outright war - what the heck is that?

      This whole article is nothing but a leftist hack job that advocates looking away, at most, pointing a finger at the problem as the end results of increased intrusions occur. I hear all of this peaceful this and that and hearts and minds. Yet, as often people state on here, most people are too stupid; they don't care. If people can't figure out the two-party paradigm is a paradox or if they treat government as their god, why would they care? As for the whole centralized thing, I think Heath and (other) Anon put it away just fine. All governments are the same. It's just how quiet its people are.

      This peaceful resistance with nothing more than not getting my head blown off just doesn't have bite. Give me something that is workable and real. And, get it right with the ranchers; don't distort history from the get-go. Getting our history right is the #1 resistance to tyranny.

      Delete
    4. Face it Mike, you got owned on this one. You should've just let it go...

      Delete
    5. "Face it Mike, you got owned on this one. You should've just let it go..."

      Only in your own deluded mind pal. Stupid is as stupid does.

      Delete
    6. And to Mr. First Off:

      Let me know when you're ready to think.

      Delete
  2. No, just no. Don't know much about Canada But for Australia and New Zealand, there is no decentralization at all, in fact the Government makes everything its business, plays one group off against another and treats its citizens like Indians on the reservation, constitutionally speaking, When the government finds the suggestion that its power might be restrained in some way, overnight the law is changed by the government in favour of well you know who.. "Musn't grumble' might as well be the motto of NZ. And its not ten minutes before the Governments of both nations are offering their SAS units to any stupidity the US gets into and is very reluctant to even admit that they are involved, At least the US Government has to give lip service to its 'scrap of paper'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! Britain and NZ/Canada/Aus do not have a first or second amendment. In fact, the guardian had to come to the us specifically bc of our first amendment just to continue doing the snowden leak stories! They made that very clear in their editorial explaining why they set up shop in America and had American media partners. This took place after the British govt stormed the paper and just destroyed the computers and confiscated what they wanted - which makes it difficult to take seriously how they are less centralized. As far as militarized, the British had an even larger empire than American currently does but it collapsed for economic reasons

      Delete
  3. Let's give the United States back to the native Americans. Smoke a peace pipe with them, give them back their land and swim to England.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jerry, why don't you take the Rev. T. Lawrence Shannon's long swim to China instead.

      Delete
  4. Disagree. We are already seeing two state governments back down out of fear in enforcing the latest gun ban schemes in CT and NY, not to mention CO residents openly refusing to obey the bg check laws.

    They are only doing this bc they don't want to get shot - no other reason. The worst tyrants of the last century who killed 200 million plus were very careful to disarm anyone in the public who might oppose them before they started their mass murder for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's because our form of government relies on the illusion of voluntarism. They say you get to vote, you are a part of the system so the adult thing to do if the government does something bad to you is to suck it up and just vote again in the next election. The more violence they have to use to enforce their edicts, particularly when those they initiating violence upon are obviously good people who are no threat to anyone, the more the government loses control and must bend to the people. Non-compliance with bad laws seems to work pretty well. Not just in CT, NY, and CO as you mentioned, but on the topic of "illegal" immigration, marijuana as a schedule narcotic, etc.

      Delete
    2. That is definitely part of it, but the other part has been expressed by the unions and sheriffs in both states: they don't want their men getting shot attempting to enforce a stupid law that won't affect crime and tha they don't have enough manpower to enforce with all of the people defying it.

      So then the excplicit and implicit threats of violence and self defense against the state is forcing the state to back down rather than face a strategic and political disaster.

      Delete
  5. Got to agree with Rockwell here, violence or even the threat of violence against the state will only result in more violence. Direction confrontation will always have blowback, there is no denying that fact.

    As we all know the state has more resources that the citizenry does and even if a few state thugs might have a change of heart, the state will just recruit more thugs who to take the place of those who leave. For ever resistance group there can always be one group that will dislike them and the state knows this. Only non-violent peaceful resistance is going to win over people to the side of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. size and resources doesn't necessarily mean victory. Insurgencies have been successful against the world's superpowers time and time again.

      Delete
    2. Bingo. Now there IS a point where it could be done another way but you would need MILLIONS of people behind you (another poster was too stupid to see that's where I was heading). And even then there's STILL no guarantee you're going to get liberty out of it.

      For the sake of argument let's say we have some violent revolution real soon. What the hell good is it since most people are still mindless little drones? We'll simply get the same shit (or worse) we already have. The gunge-ho cowboys here don't seem to realize that people have to OPEN THEIR EYES before getting all tough guy on them. And hell, by that point violence will probably be completely unnecessary.

      Guys you gunge-ho idiots need to think this through, eh? Don't be an idiot people. THINK.

      Delete
    3. Not talking about war or taking over some regime. Talking about self defense and protecting property. Insurgencies aren't exactly nonviolent.

      However, this whole rancher thing really boils down to taxes, which is the first act of agression. And when you look into it, it's more mundane then it looks. It's been going on for years.

      -- Stupid Poster aka Mr. First of All

      Delete
  6. Then bend your knees and kneel. Don't complain about the weight of those chains being placed on you. For me, I would rather die on my feet than kneel to be a slave. Molan Labe

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is absolutely no possible way that a bunch of rustics are going to defeat His Majesty's armed forces as they are unbeatable and the strongest and most professional force in the world. All ye who contemplate armed struggle shall tremble before The British Grenadiers and live to regret your treasonous insubordination to the one true crown ordained by God.

    http://youtu.be/PGrxHO-B2TY

    ReplyDelete
  8. I disagree with the definition of war in this post. War is just another political tool. The ends are certain, if only to those who are sending the military to war. They certainly have a goal in mind. In the case of the American Revolution, the end was independence from Britain. The end of the Civil War was to prevent the south from seceding and forming their own confederacy.

    The ends only seem uncertain now because the government conceals them from us through propaganda. They lie about the reasons because the know the people would not tolerate their ends.

    Violence cannot be ruled out as a means of resistance. If you are attacked, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself. Obviously, the initiation of force is wrong and counterproductive. It's terrorism. I don't think anyone here would advocate that. But if the BLM is coming in and stealing your cattle, i wouldn't begrudge a rancher defending his property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are also equating "war" with standing directly in front of the govt and fighting it out. This is not how it would be done - it would be a 4GW aka a modern guerrilla battle of attrition that demoralizes the bullies into leaving us alone.

      Heck, what if our govt started rounding people up and putting them in camps just as many govts did in the last century? Would it be moral to watch young children be rounded up and not try to stop them? Or old people? I say not only no, but hell no. Jesus told the disciples to sell a coat for a sword, not the other way around.

      Delete
  9. Well ...to this day, the USG can't tell an Afghani man to buckle up while riding in his car.(actually, a USG stooge COULD tell a real man to "buckle up" but the same stooge will probably get his head cut off).
    And there damn sure ain't no Obamacare.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Non-violent resistance didn't work out so well for the Jews of Europe. I am always fascinated by the fact that men, women, and children willingly walked themselves into gas chambers.

    https://i.imgur.com/eSnLUgE.jpg

    The idea that non-violent resistance is the only answer also ignores our own country's dismal forays into armed conflicts after WWII, where small guerilla tactics essentially negated the big bureaucratic nightmare that is the U.S. Armed Forces (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq). Sure, we can do flash and awe, but we can't win the minds and soul of the people using force.

    As far as morality is concerned, I would argue that in order to win the hearts and minds of the folks, you have to get the Leviathan to strike first. However, that usually requires someone's life to be sacrificed. I certainly will not be volunteering for that, but I do not expect my fellow men to provide the other cheek. Will the Feds be back for the Bundys? Of course. But they just flinched.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Quote: " Only non-violent resistance is right."

    As Herman Cain would say: "BULL-CRAP".

    Tell it to the hundreds of millions throughout history who have been slaughtered and enslaved because they did not have arms to defend themselves and defeat the state.

    ReplyDelete