TL Davis: A Functional Resistance


Thoughtful words, as always.

Warm-ups are nearly done.

Tempus fugit.

22 responses to “TL Davis: A Functional Resistance

  1. Not a 98k. Likely a vz-24.

  2. Great men are pretty rare, but TL’s one of ’em. In the piece, he intimates the dizziness of all of this: the opposing principles–even good principles that oppose each other–and the multitude of possibilities and outcomes. On the surface, it all seems unresolvable, an impossible goal.

    That’s why hierarchy is so important, and buried in the piece is the actual resolution—“There is a self-loathing that has been created among the populace that has resulted in a desire to self-destruct.”

    THAT’S the controlling principle and it’s why so few can see the way out of this. It’s because we’ve been taught–and more than a few keep teaching it, even here–that there’s something better than our own lives and values, that the good is to be found somewhere outside of ourselves, that it’s bigger than we are. On this theory, it’s our fallibility that makes us bad, as if being imperfect means that you can’t be good. Talk about an absurd premise.

    It’s false, that’s all. The good is something that arises from the existence of choice…it’s opposed to the bad, duh. The good is what most people here and everywhere value…friends, love, families, production, having fun, etc. etc. etc.

    We were snookered, and there’s nothing else to it. It was taught–and beaten–into us that this is not what the good is, that we must sacrifice our own minds and bodies to something–anything–that’s better than us. Sacrifice is the way to be a good person in this scam, and production and success are indicators of the bad. Why? Simple…because the self is bad and success helps the self. This MUST be bad in this theory, else we’ll never look elsewhere for the good. And tyrants are only too quick to tell us where to look; just listen to ANY politician speak.

    So are production and success on the wax or wane? Shocker, huh?

    None of this is rocket science. It’s all the tyrants ever needed, for good people to believe that they’re not really good. What we see now is the “cashing in” of this anti-life, anti-individual philosophy. And we’re gonna keep seeing it, until the foundational principle is eradicated. THAT’S why nothing gets better.

    Wanna know what the good is? Go look in a mirror; you’ll know whether it’s there or not. Want better? Then do better; there’s simply no other way.

    • want to see the most dangerous animal on the planet? Stand in front of a mirror. ‘Cept Klein. He’ll see the opposite wall

      • “want to see the most dangerous animal on the planet? Stand in front of a mirror.”

        Right! You got it! Very nice. THAT’S why tyrants can be stopped. Of course you see that as “danger,” which goes to the point of what I wrote. Were you not a dupe for all that you were taught, you’d see it as glory and splendor.

        “‘Cept Klein. He’ll see the opposite wall”

        That brings up an important, albeit derivative, question. Why in the world would you care?

        • We need a Leader, a War King, a George Washington. Libertarians calling themselves Anarchists are obviously not only bizarre, but hopelessly confused and confusing. The Roman Republic did this during times of War, elect a War King. It worked for centuries until the rise of Caesar. And George Washington stepped down instead of becoming a defacto King. If you want guarantees, you’re in the wrong universe. As Barnhardt said, We are the gold – or not.

          Can you tell me when Libertarians started calling themselves Anarchists? And why? Is an attempt to confuse – since Anarchism has always been associated with Leftism? Or is it an attempt to create a new school of Libertarianism – one open to “action” and not hostile to the nation state?

          • “We need a Leader, a War King…”

            Uh huh. But first we need you to tell us what we need. Is that the theory?

            Should I tell you what you need, or is it a one-way theory? Lotta those floating around; better get in line.

          • Can you tell me when Libertarians started calling themselves Anarchists?

            When they went from wanting a limited government to wanting no government at all. “Government” here means a monopoly, a dictate from the government, that only the government can do some activities.

            And why?

            Because they finally admitted “limited government” is a myth.

  3. B.G. McMahan

    Suggestion to WRSA: One thread every two weeks , a “conference thread”.

  4. Colorado Pete

    “A nation so dedicated to its own annihilation cannot long be deterred.”

    Masthead quote there.

  5. I can honestly say that there are a lot more Americans seething with anger at what has become of our country than the author gives credit for. Most of them are waiting for the right time or leader to say ‘game on!’ One should not make the mistake of confusing patience and restraint with cowardice.



    • Well said, sir.

    • I agree Brian, but they are neither type of majority I described. At this pace, the deal will be done long before someone says Go!

    • Every time somebody finally gets fed up with the way things are being done and makes a stand he’s vilified by the media and disavowed by those he thought were his friends and compatriots. Expecting such a reaction, is it any wonder so few actually step off the porch and make their stand? Added to that, there’s too much distance between us and few of us really know if the “patriot” who wrote the latest ‘hell-fire and brimstone’ essay denouncing Obama and his government is a patriot or a plant?

      Until all the disparate groups and individuals can actually come together and get to know each other we are pretty well screwed. Of course, once we get together we become a bigger target and we’re screwed then too.

      These past few months have shown an increasing willingness of citizens to confront government jackboots. Bundy Ranch was a watershed event but I know – just as sure as God made little green apples – there’s some BLM office with the sole purpose of planning a retaliative strike against those who participated in the standoff. When that happens we will find out just who among us is willing to sacrifice his life, his fortune and his sacred honor.

    • The “Cold Anger” post from a few weeks back intimates this exact thing. My question is this, can we all (or even any two of us) agree on what that right time or who that leader is? I know that the negatives show more glaringly than the positives, and we have to hold to core beliefs that bind us together rather than pick each other apart over some of the more silliness. I am searching in the meatspace for some semblance of the committees that those old dudes with tri-horn hats were involved in; you know, start local.

  6. TL like he always does touches on the essence of what makes us what we are.
    I believe it is contingent on our liberty we find a way to become that plurality of people who can not be denied our Liberty by anybody or anything.
    Read that?… Can Not Be Denied.

    You all know what a Plurality is?

    You want liberty, well we not only got to figure out what a plurality is, but we have to grasp we are a plurality already, and that we don’t know we are a plurality…yet. Because when it begins we are, everything changes. We become the defining dynamic in the equation of liberty and tyranny.
    We all want to get to where TL asks, winning? Only as a plurality are we going to win.
    As a plurality we got legitimacy. Legitimacy like nothing in the entire scope of human activity. The force natural to a plurality in liberty can not be stopped. Nothing can stand in its way.

    It is such a difficult thing to describe, this plurality. The legitimacy and power it is. But it is as real as the sun rising.

    One of us has to find a way to get the idea across.

    • The problem isn’t with how it’s expressed. The problem is that far too many people are far too invested in not hearing. They either find the courage within themselves to overcome that, or they don’t. C’est tout.

  7. From what I am hearing, we need a George Washington, a General Patton, A General Pershing, an Eisenhower and a MacArthur, as well as a Stonewall Jackson.

    We also need a John and Samuel Adams, a James Monroe and a James Madison. So we need to coalesce a principle as a plurality of people united under E Pluribus Unum. We need an emissary to speak to and listen to each group, to coordinate the opinions and desires.

    We need a grand strategy and an exemption of liability for those whom are reluctant to participate in victory. Why would not city states of Redoubts be a temporary condition whilst awaiting a more perfect union?

    So long as the hostilities to conspiracy theories, the Joos did it theories, reluctance to acknowledge whom are a real threat and why they are a threat…We will continue a retrograde action while in various states of confusion.

    Do I need to pull rank on everyone to get us all pushing in the same cardinal direction?

    • No, you’re just doing big government, again. What you actually need to do is stop paying taxes.

    • Oh I don’t even think pulling rank would help with this group;) I like the way you think though and agree with you…We do all need to be going one direction…We do need to be setting down with one another, put petty differences aside and hammer out the details…I don’t think it will ever happen because we don’t have enough statesmen…