>The latest from John Robb’s Global Guerillas:
Here’s a bit of fun thinking about combining protest, games, and open source movements into a potent coercive tool for non-violent protest (in a post-Ghandi world). It’s just some ideas that may or may not be of interest.
Traditional non-violent protest is dead as a means of reversing bad organizational behavior. It’s so easily ignored in a media saturated environment and the methods of controlling and marginalizing it have become easy and widely practiced (from “free speech zones” to non-lethal weapons to crowdsourced identification of protesters). Further, shame doesn’t work anymore as a means of dissuasion. Given these impediments, the revival of protest means rethinking how it is used as a coercive tool. It means going beyond attrition (boycotts, physical damage, etc.) and moral suasion (signage, marches, etc.) and into the realm of systemic disruption. Here’s one approach.
In most large traditional organizations, whether they be corporations or bureaucracies, decision making is dominated by a small number of very powerful people protected by a phalanx of senior specialists. They are not democracies. Yet, in modern western societies, this elite group and their specialists are able to dissociate themselves from jobs when it comes to their private lives. They live unencumbered within our impersonal society. This window of vulnerability creates a yawning opportunity for innovative forms of disruptive non-violent protest. One that pierces the organizational and societal veil of anonymity for these individuals by turning them into systempunkts (vulnerable nodes within the targeted organization’s network that would cause the most damage if disrupted)…
Read the rest.
>Anglophiles (and even Anglophobes) should read in full this essay from Gates of Vienna, which begins:
Ethnically Cleansing the English
by Paul Weston
The Camp Of The Saints
“A West which has not yet understood that whites, in a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles”
— Jean Raspail, 1982,
It is understandable that the vast majority of the heavily propagandised English populace remain unaware of the continental shift in immigrant demographics and birth rates that will relegate the indigenous population of England under the age of 40 to ethnic minority status in their homeland within twenty years.
Understandable, admittedly, but if these recipients of a progressive education and 24/7 cradle-to-grave state-sponsored brainwashing could remove their liberal blinkers and gaze in horror at their surroundings through the eyes of their grandparents, then they could only have themselves to blame, because their dispossession was carried out in full view of those that would not see, and in retrospect how could there be any other outcome than gradual extinction when one considers exactly what out socialist rulers have carried out over the last few decades?
Read the rest.
Then consider this post noted at Maggie’s Farm last week, as well as the Ground Zero mosque now being planned in Manhattan.
Of course, what has already happened in what Tam calls “the place where Great Britain used to be” could never happen here, right?
>From Vanderleun’s KA-CHING:
You can’t get good Chinese takeout in China and Cuban cigars are rationed in Cuba. That’s all you need to know about communism.
>Go and read Geheime Staatspolizei Kommissar….uh, make that DHS Secretary Napolitano’s “balancing” twaddle regarding internet monitoring.
Do a word search within the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for that term “balancing”.
Let me know what you find.
But at least we still have this…
That’s right…..once again, cue Lee Greenwood:
>Professor Reynolds tees up his take on the story, and adds this follow-on report.
But the best thinking on the topic I’ve seen comes from the Cliffs of Insanity; read and then think through the whole thing in your AO.
Remember, boys: once you call the tune, you have to pay the piper.
Just you try to run Leviathan’s mechanisms with no POL and the words “all .gov data nodes must die” on the lips, fingers, and soldering iron of every freedom-lover on the continent.
Good luck with that.
Especially if you know what a “recusationer” is.
UPDATE 0110 EDT 20 JUNE 2010: A rebuttal to concerns as expressed above, as posted on Instapundit.
>All of this Leviathan-expansion and collaboration of late has raised the question:
Has anybody really thought through what it would take to sever your opponent’s head efficiently for subsequent propaganda purposes?
A couple of chaps over coffee this afternoon were riffing on a variation on this theme.
Keep the comments on target, please; while it is true that a big honking chainsaw will do the job, let’s focus for now on:
1) Hand tools, and
2) Best (i.e., effective and memorable) ways to repurpose the asset once removed from its former owner.
Other than that, be creative.
You might also to light up this vid as you cogitate:
>Jennifer III does the “now and then” based on the Declaration’s text.
Read it all, please, and pass to others.
(USG FY 2010 Budget – click to enlarge)
Karl takes everyone to school
Default by the US Government is inevitable.
Make your plans accordingly (including the inevitable reaction by creditors who have a history of mass murder in their recent past).
>From Billy Beck:
Thu Jun, 17 2010
How To Draw A Line
“The entire effect — if not the purpose — of a jaywalking statute is to strip the individual of that which he is born with: the principal device with which humans are able and naturally authorized to make their ways through the world. This is a metaphysical issue that extends to politics. Beware of false equivocations with actual crimes that bring harm to others (contrast with those which are arbitrarily asserted by the state). Your question is sloppy. The matter is not whether an individual should be permitted to ignore the police so generally as you put it. If it were that simple, then all of politics is reduced to a binary solution set including only the alternatives of total rebellion on the one hand and total submission on the other, in every issue from jaywalking to murder, and anything else over which the state would claim authority. (‘Whether you want to use one or two cups of flour in that recipe is not your choice: you will obey statute if we say so, or face the might of the state.’)
Your question stipulates to the majesty of the law, without accounting that the law is almost always an ass.
Me? I know how to get across a street. My parents saw to that at an early age.
Fuck the police.
That is all.”
Related (also from Beck): This article from McElroy.
One more observation: Is there any doubt that the original “infraction” (jaywalking) was deemed citation-worthy based on the local Leviathan’s lust for the resulting fine and court fees revenue?
Cue Lee Greenwood:
>Thomas Sowell’s latest:
Sometimes you can read a book that will change your mind on some fundamental issue.
Rarely, however, is there just one page that can undermine or destroy a widely held belief. But there is such a page — Page 77 of the book “Out of Work” by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway.
The widespread belief is that government intervention is the key to getting the country out of a serious economic downturn.
The example often cited is President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s intervention, after the stock market crash of 1929 was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, with its massive and long-lasting unemployment.
This is more than just a question about history.
Right here and right now there is a widespread belief that the unregulated market is what got us into our present economic predicament, and that the government must “do something” to get the economy moving again. FDR’s intervention in the 1930s has often been cited by those who think this way.
What is on that one page in “Out of Work” that could change people’s minds?
Read the rest.
Imagine what six more years of Obamastration will do to America.
>“Look at the Gulf oil spill, that’s what happens when we let corporations just do their own thing without any accountability. We can’t allow that to happen with the Internet. We won’t allow it.”
An FCC staffer, quoted here.
Related article here.
Limits on central government power such as those contained in Articles I and II of the Constitution mean nothing.
They will do whatever they want, whenever they want.
Only two paths forward – fight or submit.
>Please read this forum thread in response to Lessons from Lithuania, Part I.
Take good notes.
This material will be on the exam.
>John Galt FLA begins another blovel at his Shenandoah blog.
More as John posts same.
>Read these two pieces by John Venlet, along with their embedded links:
First Shot Justification Thoughts
Those questions are being debated, quietly, across the world by freedom-loving people.
Exam time is almost here.
Hope you’ve done the coursework.
>A wonderful and empowering essay from Kent McManigal (h/t to Ms. Wolfe) on vision and choice in freedom’s pursuit.
Read it all, please.
Then implement Kent’s suggestion in your life.
>Cliffs of Insanity contributes the graphic and this coverage.
Codrea’s piece is here, along with Mike’s take here.
As a wise man once said to me:
“Come the crunch, the clueless and the semi-clueless will turn on and try to destroy the ones who understand.”
And yes, that was with reference to the freedom movement.
>A question from Restore The Constitution for all international and domestic friends, allies, and apparatchiks of this UN meeting being held in NYC this week:
#1 “If you try and take my guns, I will shoot you” (we’ve all heard variations on this one)
#2 “If you try and take my guns, maybe you’ll get them and maybe you wont. I won’t risk my life then and there to stop you. But if you do manage to get any of my guns, I promise you that I will track you down afterwards and I WILL throw Sulphuric acid in your face.”
Which statement is more likely to give a would-be gun grabber pause?
Read the rest .
The transnational socialists, both here and abroad, have their Programme of Action and related materials.
So do the free people of the world.
>JR Nyquist posts this question:
Have you ever been to the Website of the Communist Party USA? It’s worth studying, if only to compare the policy positions taken by the Communists with your own. Are you a fellow traveler? Are you a friend or ally of the left? Perhaps, up until now, you have been following the party line unwittingly. And what, pray tell, is the party line? “A better world is possible,” says the Communist Party USA, “a world where people come before profits. That’s socialism. That’s our vision.” The Communists also want us to support the elimination of America’s nuclear arsenal through the observance of “Nuclear Abolition Day.” They want to end the travel ban to Communist Cuba. They condemn Israel’s brutality on the high seas, and support oppressed people everywhere. They are concerned about global warming, and hate the wicked machinations of finance capital.
Communists aren’t likely to support the oppressed of Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Zimbabwe. Understandably, the American Communist does not dwell upon the brutalities of Communist rule in other countries. He wants to establish a positive image in order to win new “friends and allies.” As it happens, the Communists in America have countless friends and allies: in schools and universities, on newspapers and on television, even in government.
The leader of the Communist Party USA, Sam Webb, offered the following “verbal remarks” to the 29th National Convention of the Communist Party USA last month: He congratulated Communism’s “friends and allies” on recent achievements. “What a difference between now and five years ago when we convened in Chicago!” he exclaimed. “At that time a Puerto Rican woman raised in the South Bronx didn’t sit on the Supreme Court. Then the president didn’t call for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Millions had no health care and no promise of it in the near future…. We weren’t in a position to fight for a progressive agenda, but on the defensive. The pendulum of power didn’t yet tilt in favor of working people, people of color, women and their allies. And, an African American wasn’t president…”
Read the rest.
And remember to expand your analysis to include the “other” major political party in America as well.
>From Wendy McElroy comes this post covering just one day’s worth of police arrogance and criminality, as compiled by Injustice Everywhere.
Combined with David Codrea’s essential “Only Ones” compilations, I’d ask readers to spread this information and this website far and wide.
The more people know about and publicly object to this kind of thuggish behavior, the more the current “blue wall of silence” system will be delegitimized in the eyes of Mr. and Mrs. Middle America.