Why Is It Necessary For The Federal Government To Turn The United States Into A Prison Camp?

ilene's picture

Why Is It Necessary For The Federal Government To Turn The United States Into A Prison Camp?

There has been no society in the history of the world that has ever been 100% safe. No matter how much money the federal government spends on "homeland security", the truth is that bad things will still happen.  Our world is a very dangerous place and it is becoming increasingly unstable.  The federal government could turn the entire country into one giant prison camp, but that would still not keep us safe.  It is inevitable that bad stuff will happen in life.  But we have a choice.  We can choose to live in fear or we can choose to live as free men and women.  Our forefathers intended to establish a nation where liberty and freedom would be maximized. 

But today we are told that we have to give up our liberties and our freedoms and our privacy for increased security.  But is such a trade really worth it?  Just think of the various totalitarian societies that we have seen down throughout history.  Have any of them ever really thrived?  Have their people been happy?  Unfortunately, the U.S. federal government has decided that the entire country needs to be put on lock down.  Nearly everything that we do today is watched and tracked, and personal privacy is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.  Many of the things that George Orwell wrote about in 1984 are becoming a reality, and that is a very frightening thing.  The United States is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Sadly, we are rapidly becoming the exact opposite of that.

I don't know about you, but I never signed up to live in North Korea.  When I was growing up I was taught that repressive regimes such as North Korea are "the bad guys" and that America is where "the good guys" live.

So why do we want to be just like North Korea?

When they put in the naked body scanners at U.S. airports and started having TSA agents conduct "enhanced pat-downs" of travelers, I decided that I was not going to fly anymore unless absolutely necessary.

Then I heard about how "random bag checks" were being conducted at Metro train stations in the Washington D.C. area, and I was glad that I was no longer taking the train into D.C. anymore.

But now the TSA is showing up everywhere.  Down in Houston, undercover TSA agents and police officers will now "ride buses, perform random bag checks, and conduct K-9 sweeps, as well as place uniformed and plainclothes officers at Transit Centers and rail platforms to detect, prevent and address latent criminal activity or behavior."

So now I have another thing to add to my list of things that I can't do anymore.

No more riding buses for me.

But the truth is that you can't escape this expanding security grid no matter how hard you try.

In fact, TSA "VIPR teams" conduct approximately 8,000 "unannounced security screenings" every year at bus terminals, train stations, ports and highway rest stops throughout the United States.

Look, every society needs some level of security.  There are always bad guys out there that want to harm innocent people.

But in the United States we must demand that those in charge of our security do their jobs in a way that does not compromise our dignity, our liberties or our freedoms.

Does having TSA thugs touch the private parts of old women and young children before they get on their flights keep us any safer?

Of course not.

But it does move our country in a very dangerous direction.

The reality is that this "Big Brother control grid" that is being constructed all around us is expanding in a thousand different ways.

For example, a new bill before the U.S. Congress would require black box data recorders to be installed in all new vehicles starting in 2015.  These black box data recorders will be able to constantly transmit data about everything that your car is  doing to the government and to the insurance companies.  The following is from a recent article by Eric Peters....

And naturally, they – the government, insurance companies – will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you’ve been and when. This will create a surveillance net beyond anything that ever existed previously. Some will not sweat this: After all, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why worry? Except for the fact that, courtesy of almost everything we do being either “illegal” or at least “suspicious” we all have a great deal to hide. The naivety of the Don’t Worry, it’s No Big Deal crowd is breathtaking. Did the average Soviet citizen also “not have anything to hide,” and hence why worry?

But the last possibility is probably the creepiest possibility: EDRs tied into your car’s GPS will give them – the government and its corporate **** ******* (edited for language) – literal physical control over (hack) “your” vehicle. This is not conspiracy theorizing. It is technological fact. Current GM vehicles equipped with the same technology about to be mandated for every vehicle can be disabled remotely. Just turned off. All the OnStar operator has to do is send the appropriate command over the GPS to your car’s computer, which controls the engine. It is one of the features touted by OnStar – of course, as a “safety” feature.

In the future, it will be used to limit your driving – for the sake of “energy conservation” or perhaps, “the environment.” It will be the perfect, er, vehicle, for implementing U.N. Agenda 21 – the plan to herd all of us formerly free-range tax cattle into urban feedlots. So much easier to control us this way. No more bailing out to the country or living off the grid – unless you get there (and to your work) by walking.

Even when you are sitting at home you are still being watched and monitored in countless ways.

For example, every single call you make on your cell phone is intercepted and monitored by the government.

Your Internet activity is tracked and monitored by a whole host of government agencies as well.  If you doubt this, just read this article.

Now CISPA would expand government surveillance of the Internet even further.  The following description of CISPA comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation website....

CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity…. CISPA’s ‘information sharing’ regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for any non-regulatory purpose so long as one significant purpose is for cybersecurity or to protect national security.

Frightening stuff, eh?

I want you to imagine a scenario for a moment.  Imagine that the government assigned two "watchers" to you that followed you everywhere you went and stared directly into your face the entire time.

Would you feel comfortable?

Why not?

You don't have anything to hide, do you?

Well, of course the truth is that none of us would like having our privacy constantly invaded.  It is not pleasant to constantly feel like you are being watched.

That is why all of these new "security measures" are so alarming.  A system is being set up where all of us are being constantly watched and monitored 24 hours a day.

And most Americans have no idea how fast the transition to full martial law could potentially be.

Barack Obama recently updated an old executive order that has been around for decades that would enable him to take charge of all food, all energy, all health resources and all transportation resources in the United States with the stroke of a pen. This new update would allow him to do it even in "non-emergency" situations.

The following is what U.S. Representative Kay Granger recently had to say about this executive order....

This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas – even farm equipment – can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries.  The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense."  There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.

Later on in her letter, Representative Granger even used the phrases "martial law" and "government takeover" to describe the power that Barack Obama potentially has under this executive order....

It is still unclear why this order was signed now, and what the consequences are for our nation – especially during times of peace.  This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.

Do you trust Barack Obama with that kind of power?

Unfortunately, considering the really bad decisions that all of our government officials regularly make, it is really hard to trust any of them to do the right thing at this point.

The American people need to let their voices be heard on these issues.  If not, the federal government will continue to strip away our privacy, our liberties and our freedoms until everything is gone.

Do you want your children to grow up in a country that has been turned into a giant prison camp and that more closely resembles North Korea than it does the nation that our forefathers originally founded?

If not, please do what you can to speak out against these abuses.

The truth is that the federal government does not really even care about our national security anyway.

If they did, they would secure our borders. Just today I read that the National Guard is withdrawing 900 troops from the U.S.-Mexico border.  Our border security is already a total joke and now it is going to be even worse.

Over the past several decades, tens of millions of people have crossed that border illegally.  Every single day, terrorists, drug dealers, gang members, sexual predators and a whole host of other "bad guys" could be crossing that border and we would never even know about it because we aren't doing anything to stop it.

For nearly 60 years, the U.S. government has successfully protected the border between South Korea and North Korea, but the U.S. government flatly refuses to protect our own borders.

Until the federal government decides to do what the U.S. Constitution requires them to do and start protecting our borders, then the federal government should not be asking any of us to make a single sacrifice in the name of "security".

The truth is that we can have a reasonable level of security in this nation without giving up the liberties and the freedoms that millions of Americans have shed their blood to protect.

We do not need to turn the United States into a giant prison camp.  America is supposed to be the land of the free, and we need to work hard to get that dream back.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
UP4Liberty's picture

This is the beginning of an "ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT".  Think about it...

mendolover's picture

Hosea 4:6 - My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shall be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

The 'forget thy children' part scares me.

DeadFred's picture

Lightning bolts out of the sky hitting corrupt individuals are rare events. Judgement comes collectively.

GMadScientist's picture

"When I was growing up I was taught that repressive regimes such as North Korea are "the bad guys" and that America is where "the good guys" live."

There's your central issue; you bought the lie early and now you've got cognitive dissonance from your bullshit internal model and reality colliding.

DosZap's picture

just in case american soldiers don't fire upon americans:


This is a bad mistake on the ptbs part,nothing will unite whatever is left of the true American spirit than being shot,shot at, of potentially being taken prison by foreigners.


Plus, if US soldiers willl not fire on Americans, do you think they will just sit there and watch the slaughter?, my vote says no..............they are our FAMILIES.

The day we see Blue roaming the streets here, will be the day the SWHTF.

Believe it or not there are multiple millions of Americans who will die before they give up their core beliefs.

From the post above..................a truism, and hope.

The Cultural Cause

Americans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this. Most Americans have a false understanding of the term "anarchism." However, upon examining the beliefs of your average American, you will find that most Americans:

  • do not trust leaders
  • do not trust government
  • wish to be left alone
  • value their privacy
  • think of themselves as independent from society
  • do not believe that there is a systemic solution to their problems
  • believe that others should be free to do what they choose, provided they do so in private and do not harm others


The Navigator's picture

Thank you DosZap - from Wikipeida on Anarchy



Immanuel Kant on anarchy and republic

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated "Anarchy" in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force". Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic.[66][67]

As summary Kant named these four kinds of government:

A.  Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B.  Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C.  Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D. Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)



DosZap's picture

The Navigator

I cannot take credit for that,


Put that it in a post above, and I firmly believe this is exactly what most Americans eat,think, and breathe.

Step on these tenants of OUR code, and you WILL get feedback, and if pushed to violence.

People must remember, that they are only CIVIL, and long as their society is Civil, (as in governments.)

Lednbrass's picture

I think waht you say about American culture is entirely regional.  It would hold true for the South, non coastal West, and some of the Midwest but not New England and the Left Coast.  The media, political, and financial power is centered in the last two areas. Until it comes to bloodshed (where the military and gun barrel power is tilted very greatly in favor of the first areas) the collectivist model NE and LC types will hold sway.

GMadScientist's picture

Well that clears up some dilemmas for me too. ;)


eddiebe's picture

The sheep look up. Baaaaahhhhh.

lakecity55's picture

Right now, "TSA" "Agents" are not sworn officers. They have no enforcement authority.

Funny how a lot of them are being beaten up around the country. Of course, you have to be a thief or pederast in order to be hired.

JustObserving's picture

We are already a prison nation.  We have exceeded Satlin's Gulag Archipelago - More Stalin than Stalin are we:

"The total number of Americans under correctional supervision (prison, parole, etc.) is 7.1 million, more than the entire state of Massachusetts. Adam Gopnik writes in the New Yorker, "Over all, there are now more people under 'correctional supervision' in America...than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height."

No other country comes even close to our rates of incarceration. We have 760 prisoners per 100,000 people. Most European countries have one seventh that number (per capita, so it's adjusted for population). Even those on the high end of the global spectrum - Brazil and Poland - have only a quarter the number we do.

If you say this is some kind of enduring aspect of America's "Wild West" culture, you would be wrong. In 1980, our rates of incarceration were a quarter what they are now. What changed was the war on drugs and the mindless proliferation of laws that created criminal penalties for anything and everything."

Fareed Zakaria, CNN



Hannibal's picture

Get OUT while you still can.

mendolover's picture

As soon as I hit PowerBall!!


ReeferMac's picture

There is only one answer. There is no medicine that will cure this cancer. It must be rooted out by force!

Why do you THINK they are going after citizens right to bear arms? They know the same thing that our forefather's knew, when they enacted the 2nd amendment. I hate to say it, because I love what this country stands/stood for, but the only thing that will change the course we are headed down is revolution. If you want to make this country free again, do what millions of other Americans already have. Go buy a gun, while you still can. Get several boxes of bullets, while you still can. Arm yourself and prepare, while you still can. The levee will break when the tide rises too high.

Which side of it will you be on?


Everybodys All American's picture

Simple answer. Demand smaller government. Vote for people who want smaller federal government. Do you think these beaurocrats could do all this with half or a quarter of the people? Demand it.

jwoop66's picture

it is that simple.   It is the only answer.   Half of your fellow citizens will never do it.   Look at the guy above talking about "may day".   That is the problem.   Even this day and age people honestly believe communism/socialism/statism is the answer! 

Vince Clortho's picture

Don't Re-elect Anybody!

Not unless they have made a noticeable commitment to fight the machine and stand up for the American people.

If politicians understand that they will serve only one term, and then be back out on the streets with their neighbors, it will make them much more reasonable.

"Career Politicians" form a power base and are absorbed into the ranks of the machine.


disabledvet's picture

"Stop paying your taxes." Chris Christie...Governor of New Jersey! "This is not new." Taxes are the key...that's what is being monetized when the Fed "prints money"...no, "not the debt"....but "future cash flow anticipated from all those yummy taxes that are being collected." It's funny to watch the network tele-auc/"experts" poo-poo the idea that "government financing is like pouring water into a vessel with water coming out below." (ha--"that disabled vet guy is so STUPID!") Of course "there's a Phd from Texas who is applying the same algorithmic technology and has been doing so for over a decade." You know how hard it is to create a budget for any Government Agency...let alone a Federal one? GARGANTUAN task. ("give it to that nobody over there" is the usual response btw.) This blocking and tackling of GOVERNMENT finance is what simply goes unnoticed by too many of us here...and obviously "those who actually want to do all those bad things to the American people cuz we're not even Americans to begin with." the second thing that needs eliminating is DUAL CITIZENSHIP. Anyone who can "be here and there" is up to no good...the list of names should be reported on in the newspaper...and the media should demand of these people to "state your business." (and tell the truth this time!) we have yet another VERY eventful week coming...if that's a German debt bubble then "political realities" will take precedence in "affair's d'Europe." Austerity is DEAD. "FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PAY FOR IT!" is the mantra now.

FeralSerf's picture

As long as you're eliminating "DUAL CITIZENSHIP", why not eliminate citizenship altogether?  It is a mostly modern concept associatied with nationalism.  A Roman citizen was a different sort of animal.  I'm an Earthling.  Isn't that enough to define my territory?  Why should I need a bunch of parasitic herders and owners to watch over me and demand my support?

my puppy for prez's picture

Why?  Because they CAN!

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

the gov has gone insane and sees enemies behind every tree..what comes next is predictable in effect but unpredictable as to specific actions..dhs, tsa, nsa, propaganda, we have seen this all before but back then it was the bad gov's that did it..now, well now, I suspect we are all criminal terrorists to some gov thug.

JuicedGamma's picture

Var are your papers. Heil Hitler!

nmewn's picture

The question is asked...Why Is It Necessary For The Federal Government To Turn The United States Into A Prison Camp?

We live in a society, nay a world, where a sizable portion want someone/something else to be responsible for them. The clear implication of this is they desire to be subservient, to be controlled is it not?

In a world where a majority of the public accepts the proposition that a minority can be singled out for special attention (negative or positive to them) we sow the seeds.

Why, you don't wear a seatbelt like I do...there should be a law to compel you to do so or else my car insurance rates will go up.

Why, terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them...there should be a law that even allows strip searching seven year olds, in order to keep me safe when I fly.

Why, look at all these fat people around here...there should be a law mandating salt/sugar/fat content in their food or else my health insurance will go up.

Why, guns really scare me...there should be a law to provide 24/7 365 security for me whether it takes ten minutes for it to get to me or not. And while we're at it, prohibit guns for the general public.

Why, two consenting adults should not bear any consequence at all for sex...there should be a law to provide "free" condoms and birth control pills.

In all of these examples and countless more...someone is required to give something up. Either liberty or money for the sake of another. In the process the state grows more powerful.

With this new unnatural status & power it becomes paranoid, delusional, covetous of its power, to the point it spies on its own people, frantically searching for enemies against it...real or imagined.

But it was us who allowed it. It was us who in many cases begged for it.

In other words, Pogo was right ;-)

hardcleareye's picture

"All things in moderation."

I think John Locke gives the best answer to your "why:?

"IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2nd Tr., §123)"

I wish someone would "translate" his old style writing to modern language, much is lost, as in reading Shakespeare or Dante's Inferno (both were actually very funny in their time).

nmewn's picture

He was dead on right.

We join together with the understanding that we will come to the aid of each other should our lives, liberties and property come under threat. We did not join together to make uniform our lives, liberty and property which we have already done.

And we certainly didn't join to allow those in close proximity to power to take our lives, liberty and property on a whim to do with as they please.

disabledvet's picture

paraphrasing...barely..."people are stupid. they are good and do good things." Adam Smith. "laissez faire" was his view (LEAVE THEM ALONE.) We are confronted by "the academic's frustration to CONTROL things!" Unfortunately in the information age "control" is far too cheap and available...along with all the other "illegal activities" of plagiarism, "thought thieving" (is there even an acknowledgment that it's going on yet? NO?) and...ahem..."accidental death." Adam Smith is our way forward ECONOMICALLY speaking...not just through "free markets"...but PRIVATE markets. Our government thinks its winning by "turning the people into the spies themselves." Unfortunately those huge "whale banks" there were exploded in 2008 can be reconstituted under the current "you're the spy now" state. Here's what it looks like when you try:
and no..."this is not funny" (though hopefully it makes you laugh.) THAT'S YOUR BANKING SYSTEM!

Element's picture

Were we conditioned and encouraged, by the state, to respond in that way though?

Isn't that what a public 'National Broadcaster' generally does?

On top of that mechanism, which is paid for by 'tax-payers', within my own 'country' (or rather, the farm), hundreds of millions of public money is being spent every year on "Govt advertising", which is really just crass propaganda (and people like Murdoch are the ones getting all of this public-money gusher into their pocket) concerning Govt programs and ministerial 'initiatives' (1984-esque), with which to better service the cows ... I mean, to service the Citizen.

We the slaves are even working to pay for our own Govt-programming, so that we'll tend to think in ways more conducive to wider Govt intrusions, power-grabbing, taxation and disguised rorting, creating an ever expanding profoundly unproductive nanny/police/prison state.


So by all means continue the tirade, we need to snap out of it.

nmewn's picture

"Were we conditioned and encouraged, by the state, to respond in that way though?"

I would say encouraged.

First and foremost, we should all be cognizant of the fact that the first act of government is its own self perpetuation by design. Even at the expense of those who first breathed life to it. Its our creation, it is not a natural thing.

So it follows that those who see a need for anything and everything (the must haves) under the sun would promote policies that necessarily grow it until it reaches the point they turn and say...ummm, wait a minute, what have we done here?

And seem shocked...lol.

That said, I don't look at it as an anarchist would. We all (well most) decided long ago we desired forms of government. If we weren't selecting tribal chiefs we were selecting kings or selecting high minded assemblies. But along the way we lost sight of all the other things (past & present) we ceded to it that could best be done ourselves.

Time for The Great Reset.

Element's picture

I'm with you there nmewn, reset away, but I suspect we'll likely overshoot to the other way, then gyrate out of phase with each other, in the various roughly cooperative and orderly, or else brutalist and chaotic regions.

An Earth like a woman that travails with child still seems the apt metaphor.

Plus it seems Govts have defacto decided to more or less use intimidation and force to take 'choice' about Govt out of the equation.

Calmyourself's picture

+1 Neither I nor mine ever asked or agitated for any of it.  Allowing financial penalty to accrue whenever possible would solve 90% of the issues mentioned but that does not allow for CONTROL.  The predators comprising government look for leverage to assert and maintain control.   Stupid demanding spoiled people hand over leverage as their internal dialogue cannot process / handle freedom.  This will all end poorly.

Arnold Ziffel's picture
Tear gas fired at Malaysia reform protesters(MSN NEWS)




Whole world is becoming more dangerous.

The Alarmist's picture

Come on, that's Malaysia ... it's like so third world. That kind of shit don't happen here.

GMadScientist's picture

The world was already dangerous...you're just becoming aware for a change.

JOYFUL's picture

Amerikan patriots would do well to study the case of Kerry Thornley , who happened to serve in the same Marine Corp unit at Atsugi[Japan-the base Gary Powers flew U2s out of before that final, fatal flight] as a certain LHO...back in the day.

Of that certain, perfect age to be old enough to have first hand knowledge of what it meant to be a "BEAT" before Beats became "Beatniks" yet young enough to be among the first wave "HIPSTERS" who the MSM would tag out with the moniker "Hippies," Thornley occupies a priceless place in the pantheon of those totally free thinkers of the Thoreau tradition whose legacy has been so totally demolished today by the onslaught of dissimulationist politics as to be as forgotten as it is possible to be, unless you be Jack Parsons.

Once out of the Corps, and possessed of the very weird knowledge that he had been groomed as a stand in for the original PATSY himself, in case of fuckups,(by no less than Howard Hunt!?!?!) Thornley embarked on a string of artistic explosions in the form of prose writings that gave form to everything that Gary Snyder and the west coast anarchists could only properly pronounce through poetry of uber mystical bent.

Zenarchy is the politics of the mind emptied of useless anticipation. Principles are seen as tools for making decisions when inspiration fails or prolonged deliberation is impossible. Ideology and analysis are only seen as preparation. For naked awareness characterizes the moment of clear and perfect action.

or, how bout...

In the Age of Perfect Peace the True People of Old lived in harmony equal to the rhythm of the seasons and the ebb and flow of tidal cycles. With no concept of law and order, they lacked occasion for crime and turmoil.

As long as it lasted, Kerry's jocular investigations of the post-mindful mind was a hilarious and truly insightful declaration of the Amerikan Independent...the men who came back from the Pacific wars so changed in ways that the Vietnam imbroglio would not ever be capable of imitating, that they tuned to ZEN and BIKER lifestyles in preference to ever returning to civilian life.

Then Thornley woke up from his long dream of peaceful co-optation of the Empire of Emptiness, and realised that he, like so many others, had been hunted down, poisoned, and made prisoner of his own madness and paranoia, which were the only  way sane people made any sense of the world anymore post JFK's execution ... btw...seems that they(CIA-MK programers) always chose guys with troubled relations with their fathers...as a certain chronicler of the music of the 60's has so boldly pointed out!

he died a homeless wanderer somewhere on the outskirts of Atlanta, unable to anymore use poetry or the politics of enlightenment to ward off the demons that his country had planted within him. An Amerikan patriot in the sad tradition of Jack Keroauc and others who refused to lose the spark of outlaw wisdom which alway will define what it meant to be a warrior as well as just a man.

Perhaps the best way to sum up just how far we have got from the visions the Kerry and gang saw sparkling in front of their generation would be to quote Gary Snyder from Earth House Hold, in a sadly prophetic poesy that none of us ever really believed would come as true as it now has - 

"--dreamed of a new industrial-age dark ages: filthy narrow streets and dirty buildings with rickety walks over the streets from building to building - unwashed illiterate brutal cops - a motorcycle cop and a sidecar drove up over a fat workingman who got knocked down in a fight - tin cans and garbage and drooping electric wires everywhere --".

http://youtu.be/0bXSeheZLq8 [Steely Dan\Don't Take Me Alive]

etresoi's picture
The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance American opposition movements have always focused on the notion of organization. It has always been their goal to organize the people. Their hope has been to wield the collective power of the disaffected, downtrodden, and exploited as a single unit against the concentrated power of the ruling class. While their hope has been noble, their methods have been foolish. Organized resistance has many drawbacks. These drawbacks have seldom been discussed by the opposition. I believe that the only effective resistance is a completely disorganized, decentralized, and leaderless opposition.

While, on the face of it, this claim may impress you as absurd. Of course it seems absurd! It is counterintuitive. Never the less, it is the ONLY method of resistance that will work within American society. I will explain why organized resistance has never worked in the United States. In addition, I will promulgate a new formula for effective resistance.

Why has organized resistance failed in the USA?

There are many reasons for the failure of organized resistance. The two primary causes of failure are intimately connected to the culture of the United States and the political system laid down by our nation's founding fathers.

The Cultural Cause

Americans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this. Most Americans have a false understanding of the term "anarchism." However, upon examining the beliefs of your average American, you will find that most Americans:

  • do not trust leaders
  • do not trust government
  • wish to be left alone
  • value their privacy
  • think of themselves as independent from society
  • do not believe that there is a systemic solution to their problems
  • believe that others should be free to do what they choose, provided they do so in private and do not harm others

While it is undeniable that political culture in the United States often speaks to the opposite of the above list, it is also undeniable that most Americans register as neither Democrat or Republican and most Americans do not vote. Thus, despite the political culture, most Americans choose not to participate in it. This is not only due to their belief that the American political system is hopeless, but also is due to the cultural clash between the wider culture and the political culture.

Any attempt to organize large numbers of Americans into a single political movement will fail. Any attempt to create an organization led by a strong group of leaders will fail. Americans reject submersion into the collective. In a sense, Americans are anti-collectivists.

The Political Cause

American political culture is not ideological. Politicians attempt to draw ideological distinctions between the two major parties, but these distinctions are a matter of splitting hairs. The only significant difference between the two political parties is the degree of compassion represented by the rhetoric of the two parties. Compassion is not a political concept. Compassion is an attitude. Thus, the two parties differ, primarily, in attitude and not ideology.

Despite this, there remain two political parties. One is prompted to ask "why?" If each party is basically the same, with respect to ideology, why do they not merge into one party? The answer to this question is best found in viewing each political party according to its true nature. American political parties are, for all intents and purposes, organized crime units. American political parties have more in common with the Mafia than they have with their counterparts in more democratic societies. Like Mafia, each political party competes for control of territory in order to maximize the benefit to their business constituency. Like Mafia, the political parties attempt to mold the system to maintain their positions and access to resources. Like Mafia, the political parties force the average citizen to pay "protection" under the threat of violence (taxes). Like Mafia each political party uses the "protection" money collected for its own advantage.

By defining our political system in terms of the "majority" and the "opposition," our Constitution enshrines this two mafia system into law. Each Mafia passes laws to exclude new comers from the game while focusing the rest of its energy in destroying the other Mafia.

Thus, any resistance movement that chooses to become an organization is in competition with these Mafiosi. The deck is stacked and the power of the state, wielded by these organized crime units known as the Democratic and Republican parties, will waste the time and resources of any newcomer. A newcomer can only succeed by rejecting the political system, draining its resources, and undermining the rule of the state.

How is disorganized resistance superior?

In some societies, dissidents become heroes. In American society dissidents are systematically slandered, libeled, harassed, and villainized. If they become successful, they are murdered (e.g. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X). In the American experience, movements that look to leaders are decapitated. Leaders are a liability, not an asset.

Organizations can be (and are) infiltrated. Organizations can be taxed. Organizations have legal responsibility. Organizations have membership lists and lists are wonderful tools for the oppressor. Organizations take on a life of their own. They struggle to exist and their continued existence takes priority over their mission. Organizations attract opportunists, power mongers, and attention seekers. Organizations tend to exploit their rank and file for the benefit of their inner circle. Disorganizations share none of these defects.

Bureaucracy cannot comprehend disorganization. Disorganization is invisible. The asymmetry of the relationship between organization and disorganization favors disorganization. Organization depends upon planning. Planning requires predictability. Disorganization cannot be predicted. This leaves organization at a disadvantage.

Organization requires a supply chain. Supply chains can be disrupted. Disorganization depends only upon the resources of its members. Supply chains that do not exist cannot be eliminated.

Disorganized movements rely upon swarming. Swarms are difficult to defend against. If you cut a swarm in half, you have two swarms. If you eliminate one of the resulting swarms, you still have a swarm. Disorganization breeds. Organization grows. The many and dispersed are a more difficult target than the large and concentrated.

Organizations takes their steps by design. If the design is flawed, the organization fails. Disorganization relies not upon design but upon evolution. The motivating notions of disorganization are memes. Memes evolve and memes compete. This process improves the motivating notions of disorganization. This process produces multiple courses of action. While some may fail, others are likely to succeed. Taken as a whole, disorganization is more likely to succeed.

The important thing to remember is that it is easier to destroy than to create that which is designed. Thus, the cost to those who lose the manifestation of their design outweighs by leaps and bounds the cost it takes to destroy it. That which evolves is cheap and when an effort is created to destroy the evolved entity, it merely mutates and evolves again, adjusting to the new conditions. As a process that fosters evolution, a movement based on disorganization will continue to survive, evolve, and expand without cost. The resource constraints placed upon the designed (e.g. government and corporate) and those absent from the evolved (a decentralized and disorganized opposition movement), favor the later.

The limits of disorganization

I do not propose a complete absence of organization. Instead I propose a disorganization of units. Units can be as small as a single individual, or as complex as cell of individuals working together. Cells may be internally organized, but they should not be statically organized cell to cell. The movement should have no commander. It should have no central committee or governing body. No global plans should be made. The modus operandi of each unit should be to think globally and act locally. Ideas, strategies, and tactics should float freely and compete as memes within the medium of the collective conscious.


We need to construct a disorganized movement. You need not apply to join. In fact, it might be better if you did not contact me, or anyone except those with whom you wish to form a unit. Your ideas, strategies, tactics, and lessons learned should be spread anonymously or by word of mouth. When you act, should you decide to act in resistance, attribute your actions to "the Resistance." The growing din of disorganized disruption will be felt as an earthquake. There will be trembles. There will be pre-shocks. The tension will mount and, in time, there will be an earthquake. When that earthquake strikes, the organized edifice of the oppressor will fall like a house of cards.

vened's picture

Demise of the US coincided with the army of Ashkenazi jews leaving the shores of Russia/Germany/Poland/Ukraine, and landing in the US.  Read and apply the following theory:

---Culture of Critique, Preface to the First Paperback Edition
Prof. Kevin MacDonald, California State University Long Beach
Although there is much evidence that Europeans presented a spirited defense 
of their cultural and ethnic hegemony in the early- to mid-20th century, their rapid 
decline raises the question: What cultural or ethnic characteristics of Europeans 
made them susceptible to the intellectual and political movements described in 
CofC? The discussion in CofC focused mainly on a proposed nexus of 
individualism, relative lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral 
universalism—all features that are entirely foreign to Judaism. In several places 
in all three of my books on Judaism I develop the view that Europeans are 
relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to 
individualism as opposed to the ethnocentric collectivist social structures 
historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to 
this discussion—Jewish groups. I update and extend these ideas here. 

The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by 
strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less 
powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive, 
cooperating groups is obvious and is a theme that recurs throughout my trilogy 
on Judaism. This scenario implies that European peoples are more prone to 
individualism. Individualist cultures show little emotional attachment to 
ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the 
importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding 
yourself” (Triandis 1991, 82). Individualists have more positive attitudes toward 
strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a pro-social, 
altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of 
ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes 
toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little 
emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of 
common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in 
individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that 
there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are 
culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while 
collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups 
(Triandis 1990, 61). Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for 
between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism. 

Historically Judaism has been far more ethnocentric and collectivist than 
typical Western societies. I make this argument in Separation and Its Discontents 
(MacDonald 1998a; Ch. 1) and especially in A People That Shall Dwell Alone 
(MacDonald 1994; Ch. 8), where I suggest that over the course of their recent 
evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than 
Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This was originally proposed by 
Fritz Lenz (1931, 657) who suggested that, because of the harsh environment of 
the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency 
toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups. This perspective would not 
imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group 
competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or 
require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression. 

This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically 
adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse 
physical environment than at competing with other groups (Southwood 1977, 
1981), and in such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for 
extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Evolutionary 
conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in 
group competition. Ethnocentrism would thus be of no importance at all in 
combating the physical environment, and such an environment would not support 
large groups. 

European groups are part of what Burton et al. (1996) term the North Eurasian 
and Circumpolar culture area.9 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers 
adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure 
for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because 
the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily 
significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship 
relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more 
equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of 
monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and 
marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). As discussed 
below, all of these characteristics are opposite those found among Jews


"Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism
and hyper-ethnocentrism—a phenomenon that goes a long way
toward explaining the chronic hostilities in the area. I give many examples of
Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in my trilogy and have suggested in several places
that Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism is biologically based (MacDonald 1994, Ch. 8;
1998a, Ch. 1). It was noted above that individualist European cultures tend to be
more open to strangers than collectivist cultures such as Judaism. In this regard,
it is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense
fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite
pattern is found for infants from North Germany.14 The Israeli infants were much
more likely to become “inconsolably upset” in reaction to strangers, whereas the
North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli
babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the
North German babies were the opposite—findings that fit with the hypothesis
that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and


Optimusprime's picture

+1  KMD is a little-appreciated national treasure.

GMadScientist's picture

Can you name a single successful "disorganized resistance"?

You may want to read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

flattrader's picture

I belonged to a multi-county informal, under the radar barter system that operated for close to two decades before I ever got involved.

Mutliply by every small community or group of neighborhoods in the U.S. and while you may not have starved the beast, you certainly put it on a diet.



GMadScientist's picture

Yeah, I've bought weed before too, but when you've succeeded at that in the absence of the rest of society functioning as per the status quo, then you can talk.

Post currency-crisis Argentina would be a better example.

flattrader's picture

>>>Yeah, I've bought weed before too,<<<

Gawd, you really have no imagination, do you?

We bartered everything from dairy products to legal serices...and had a formal membership buying co-op for other things that couldn't be self-generated by the participants in informal barter system.

You are exactly the kind of person who would never be invited to affiliate.

Hurry along now and go buy some pot.  Make sure you pay the sales tax.

Cathartes Aura's picture

lol, and *nods*

there are so many alternatives to earning & spending, yet people rarely "see" them - particularly in amrka where presenting oneself as a dedicated, loyal consumer is a sign of being a true competitor (accolade!).

I love being out "in the world" and seeing a someone who doesn't fit, making eye contact, smiles. . .

been bartering for decades now, wherever I travel to - it's just not that hard to find a niche, tho' earning the trust is growing more difficult - as it should be.

etresoi's picture

Most recent examples have been in North Africa, which Ameri kans call the Arab spring, even though Arabs were not involved but Arabic speakers were.

GMadScientist's picture

Your failure to recognize leadership does not a disorganized resistance make; and weren't the Egyptian protests organized via Twitter?


Gully Foyle's picture


There is no need to do anything, all things must pass.

Entropy kills any organization.

The more order is created the faster chaos happens.

The problem I have with the dumbass "Iwant to keep my money/gold and I have a gun so we need to tear down the government because I feel greedy" posters here is they never consider what comes next.

Just because something falls apart it doesn't mean something better follows.


" Instead I propose a disorganization of units."

The midget in the Illuminatus trilogy.


This guy, Suelo, should be an example to everyone seeking freedom from "the Man".

Sadly too few have any real ideology, they are merely greedy bitches.


Meet the Man Who Lives on Zero Dollars In Utah, a modern-day caveman has lived for the better part of a decade on zero dollars a day. People used to think he was crazy

Daniel Suelo lives in a cave. Unlike the average American—wallowing in credit-card debt, clinging to a mortgage, terrified of the next downsizing at the office—he isn't worried about the economic crisis. That's because he figured out that the best way to stay solvent is to never be solvent in the first place. Nine years ago, in the autumn of 2000, Suelo decided to stop using money. He just quit it, like a bad drug habit.


debtandtaxes's picture

I laud what he is doing. He demonstrates that we can "opt out" of the system.

But it is interesting that only single, childless men seem able to do it. When you have kids, you want more food stability - for them.