This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Violence In The Face Of Tyranny Is Often Necessary

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

It was the winter of 1939, only a few months earlier the Soviet Union and Hitler's Third Reich had signed a partially secret accord known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; essentially a non-aggression treaty which divided Europe down the middle between the fascists and the communists. Hitler would take the West, and Stalin would take the East. Stalin's war machine had already steamrolled into Latvia. Lithuania, and Estonia. The soviets used unprecedented social and political purges, rigged elections, and genocide, while the rest of the world was distracted by the Nazi blitzkrieg in Poland. In the midst of this mechanized power grab was the relatively tiny nation of Finland, which had been apportioned to the communists.

Apologists for Stalinist history (propagandists) have attempted to argue that the subsequent attack on Finland was merely about “border territories” which the communists claimed were stolen by the Finns when they seceded from Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. The assertion that the soviets were not seeking total dominance of the Finns is a common one. However, given the vicious criminal behavior of Russia in nearby pacified regions, and their posture towards Finland, it is safe to assume their intentions were similar. The Finns knew what they had to look forward to if they fell victim to the iron hand of Stalin, and the soviet propensity for subjugation was already legendary.

The Russian military was vastly superior to Finland's in every way a common tactician would deem important. They had far greater numbers, far better logistical capability, far better technology, etc, etc. Over 1 million troops, thousands of planes, thousands of tanks, versus Finland's 32 antiquated tanks, 114 planes which were virtually useless against more modern weapons, and 340,000 men, most of whom were reservists rallied from surrounding farmlands. Finland had little to no logistical support from the West until the conflict was almost over, though FDR would later pay lip service to the event, “condemning” soviet actions while brokering deals with them behind the scenes. Russian military leadership boasted that the Finns would run at the sound of harsh words, let alone gun fire. The invasion would be a cakewalk.

The battle that followed would later be known as the “Winter War”; an unmitigated embarrassment for the Soviets, and a perfect example of a small but courageous indigenous guerrilla army repelling a technologically advanced foe.

 

To Fight, Or Pretend To Fight?

Fast forward about seven decades or so, and you will discover multiple countries around the globe, including the U.S., on the verge of the same centralized and collectivized socialist occupation that the Finnish faced in 1939. The only difference is that while their invasion came from without, our invasion arose from within. The specific methods may have changed, but the underlying face of tyranny remains the same.

In America, the only existing organization of people with the slightest chance of disrupting and defeating the march towards totalitarianism is what we often refer to as the “Liberty Movement”; a large collection of activist and survival groups tied together by the inexorable principles of freedom, natural law, and constitutionalism. The size of this movement is difficult to gauge, but its social and political presence is now too large to be ignored. We are prevalent enough to present a threat, and prevalent enough to be attacked, and that is all that matters. That said, though we are beginning to understand the truly vital nature of our role in America's path, and find solidarity in the inherent values of liberty that support our core, when it comes to solutions to the dilemma of globalization and elitism, we are sharply divided.

While most activist movements suffer from a complete lack of solutions to the problems they claim to recognize, constitutional conservatives tend to have TOO MANY conceptual solutions to the ailments of the world. Many of these solutions rely upon unrealistic assumptions and methods that avoid certain inevitable outcomes. Such strategies center mostly on the concepts of “non-aggression” or pacifism idealized and romanticized by proponents of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and the anti-war movements of the 1960's and 1970's. The post-baby boomer generations in particular have grown up with an incessant bombardment of the “higher nature” of non-violence as a cure-all for every conceivable cultural ailment.

We have been taught since childhood that fighting solves nothing, but is this really true?

I can understand the allure of the philosophy. After all, physical confrontation is mentally and emotionally terrifying to anyone who is not used to experiencing it. The average “reasonable” person goes far out of their way on every occasion to avoid it. Most of the activists that I have met personally who deride the use of force against tyrannical government have never actually been in an outright confrontation of any kind in their lives, or if they have, it ended in a failure that scarred them. They have never trained for the eventuality. Many of them have never owned a firearm. The focus of their existence has been to hide from pain, rather than overcome their fears to achieve something greater.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with becoming an “intellectual warrior”, unless that person lives under the fantasy that this alone will be enough to defeat the kind of evil we face today.

Non-aggression methods rely on very specific circumstances in order to be effective. Most of all, they rely on a system of government that is forced to at least PRETEND as if it cares what the masses think of it. Gandhi's Indian Independence Movement, for example, only witnessed noticeable success because the British government at that time was required to present a semblance of dignity and rule of law. But what happens if a particular tyranny reaches a point where the facade of benevolence disappears? What happens when the establishment turns to the use of the purge as a tool for consolidation? What happens when the mask comes completely off?

How many logical arguments or digital stashes of ethereal Bitcoins will it take to save one's life or one's freedom then?

Arguments For And Against Violent Action

The position against the use of “violence” (or self defense) to obstruct corrupt systems depends on three basic debate points:

1) Violence only feeds the system and makes it stronger.

2) We need a “majority” movement in order to be successful.

3) The system is too technologically powerful – to fight it through force of arms is “futile”, and our chances are slim to none.

First, violence does indeed feed the system, if it is driven by mindless retribution rather than strategic self defense. This is why despotic governments often resort to false flag events; the engineering of terrorist actions blamed on scapegoats creates fear within the unaware portions of the population, which generates public support for further erosion of freedoms. However, there is such a thing as diminishing returns when it comes to the “reach, teach, and inspire” method.

The escalation of totalitarianism will eventually overtake the speed at which the movement can awaken the masses, if it has not done so already. There will come a time, probably sooner rather than later, when outreach will no longer be effective, and self defense will have to take precedence, even if that means subsections of the public will be shocked and disturbed by it. The sad fact is, the faster we wake people up, the faster the establishment will degrade social stability and destroy constitutional liberties. A physical fight is inevitable exactly because they MAKE it inevitable. Worrying about staying in the good graces of the general populace or getting honest representatives elected is, at a certain point, meaningless. I find it rather foolish to presume that Americans over the next decade or two or three have the time needed to somehow inoculate the system from within. In fact, I'm starting to doubt that strategy has any merit whatsoever.

Second, the idea that a movement needs a “majority” of public backing to shift the path of a society is an old wives tale. Ultimately, most people throughout history are nothing more than spectators in life, watching from the sidelines while smaller, ideologically dedicated groups battle for superiority. Global developments are decided by true believers; never by ineffectual gawkers. Some of these groups are honorable, and some of them are not so honorable. Almost all of them have been in the minority, yet they wield the power to change the destiny of the whole of the nation because most people do not participate in their own futures. They merely place their heads between their legs and wait for the storm to pass.

All revolutions begin in the minds and hearts of so-called “outsiders”. To expect any different is to deny the past, and to assume that a majority is needed to achieve change is to deny reality.

Third, I'm not sure why non-aggression champions see the argument of statistical chance as relevant. When all is said and done, the “odds” of success in any fight against oligarchy DO NOT MATTER. Either you fight, or you are enslaved. The question of victory is an afterthought.

Technological advantage, superior numbers, advanced training, all of these things pale in comparison to force of will, as the Finnish proved during the Winter War. Some battles during that conflict consisted of less than a hundred Finns versus tens-of-thousands of soviets. Yet, at the end of the war, the Russians lost 3500 tanks, 500 aircraft, and had sustained over 125,000 dead (official numbers). The Finns lost 25,000 men. For every dead Finn, the soviets lost at least five. This is the cold hard reality behind guerrilla and attrition warfare, and such tactics are not to be taken lightly.

Do we go to the Finnish and tell them that standing against a larger, more well armed foe is “futile”? Do we tell them that their knives and bolt action rifles are no match for tanks and fighter planes? And by extension, do we go to East Asia today and tell the Taliban that their 30 year old AK-47's are no match for predator drones and cruise missiles? Obviously, victory in war is not as simple as having the biggest gun and only the uneducated believe otherwise.

The Virtues Of Violence

The word “violence” comes with numerous negative connotations. I believe this is due to the fact that in most cases violence is used by the worst of men to get what they want from the weak. Meeting violence with violence, though, is often the only way to stop such abuses from continuing.

At Alt-Market, we tend to discuss measures of non-participation (not non-aggression) because all resistance requires self-sustainability. Americans cannot fight the criminal establishment if they rely on the criminal establishment. Independence is more about providing one's own necessities than it is about pulling a trigger. But, we have no illusions about what it will take to keep the independence that we build. This is where many conceptual solutions are severely lacking.

If the system refuses to let you walk away, what do you do? If the tyrants would rather make the public suffer than admit that your social or economic methodology is better for all, how do you remove them? When faced with a cabal of psychopaths with deluded aspirations of godhood, what amount of reason will convince them to step down from their thrones?

I'm sorry to say, but these questions are only answered with violence.

The Liberty Movement doesn't need to agree on the “usefulness” of physical action because it is coming regardless. The only things left to discern are when and how. Make no mistake, one day each and every one of us will be faced with a choice – to fight, or to throw our hands in the air and pray they don't shoot us anyway. I certainly can't speak for the rest of the movement, but in my opinion only those who truly believe in liberty will stand with rifle in hand when that time comes. A freedom fighter is measured by how much of himself he is willing to sacrifice, and how much of his humanity he holds onto in the process. Fear, death, discomfort; none of this matters. There is no conundrum. There is no uncertainty. There are only the chains of self-defeat, or the determination of the gun. The sooner we all embrace this simple fact, the sooner we can move on and deal with the dark problem before us.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:23 | Link to Comment NemoDeNovo
NemoDeNovo's picture

Like it or not Violence Solves Problems!

 

There is NOT One of us that does not eat without an act of Violence happeneing first, even Vegetarians....

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:35 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

I'm having trouble with an equivalence between killing a carrot and killing a fellow human.

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:59 | Link to Comment economics9698
economics9698's picture

Kill central bankers, politicians, leaders, the higher, the better, first priority.

Kill spies, who historically are gays and Jews.

Kill combatants.

Why the down votes?  This is military 101 without the pc bs. 

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:59 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Right.

Fight for freedom for the 99% of the population that doesn't even want it.

Insanity at its finest.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:21 | Link to Comment 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

Anybody who would refer to the Finnish Army of 1939 as a "guerrilla army" knows absoultely nothing about the history of the Winter War.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:59 | Link to Comment runningman18
runningman18's picture

The Finnish are renowned for their guerrilla tactics during the WInter War.  You need to study up on your Finnish history.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:31 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

The concept of "non violent protest" has been praised and promoted by the establishment precisely because it doesn't particularly scare them, and is easily ignored.

It allows them to make slight changes to their agenda and allow minimum concessions, while maintaining absolute control.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:16 | Link to Comment Confundido
Confundido's picture

Really? Do you think the independence of India, the fall of the Appartheid or the rights gained by blacks in the USA are minimum concessions? These are historical examples. Do you think that should we all coordinate to withdraw our monies from the fiat system and turn to gold, the establishment would maintain control? Do you suggest that taking arms will do more to go back to a gold standard than repudiating US Treasuries in coordinated fashion? I doubt that...

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:22 | Link to Comment Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

I agree with this writer wholeheartedly, but then I look at the masses and see walking, eating, fucking garbage, that deserves what it gets. I already left America 15 years ago, and have set myself up well. Any thinking person could have seen this mess coming long ago. Maybe it's just Darwinism.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 05:53 | Link to Comment Four chan
Four chan's picture

the way has been laid out for those of us that do and produce,

we check out and no longer provide our enemies the means of

enslaving us. only by starving the parasites can we regain our freedom.

we are the owners of our lives and our production needs to benefit us

first and those we choose to share it with, those we the creators deem

worthy second. only we can take back our freedom by not participating in their grift.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 06:17 | Link to Comment Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

Very poetic. Fuck the system. I left after the Serbian war. Couldn't stomach feeding the machine after that. By the way, I just love those titties.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 07:41 | Link to Comment malikai
malikai's picture

How many logical arguments or digital stashes of ethereal Bitcoins will it take to save one's life or one's freedom then?

Nice try Brandon. LOL at talking about "freedom" and "sacrifice", while you go on a shameless antiplug.

Do you write these for the clicks, too?

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 09:04 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

 

The concept of "non violent protest" has been praised

 

Usually followed by the killing of millions of people.

 

Preceded of course by the confiscation of all weapons.

 

They usually promise you a special place if you help them.....which means you'll be the first to die when they've reached their objective.

 

Yes we can......does not mean you.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:35 | Link to Comment new game
new game's picture

I'm with the government and here to help you...

let us start by recycling all those weapons.

next we are here to inform you that the payments are coming to an end.

and as a result of our inability to finance your future we are going to have you

work at the gulog food factories sponsored by monsanto governemnt labs.

we hope your stay is beneficial...

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 14:28 | Link to Comment WarriorClass
Sun, 01/05/2014 - 14:16 | Link to Comment N2OJoe
N2OJoe's picture

"The concept of 'non violent protest' has been praised and promoted by the establishment precisely because it doesn't particularly scare them, and is easily ignored."

 

This is what I've been saying forever! They (the oligarchs) push this concept SO HARD yet nobody ever wonders why?

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:52 | Link to Comment Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Even as violence is inevitable, so is "writing for clicks".

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 15:01 | Link to Comment WarriorClass
WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan

As America declines and becomes a failed or failing state, the corporations and businessmen and bureaucrats who run it will continue to preach globalism and multiculturalism and feminism.

They will continue to condemn anything that could be considered racism or tribalism—especially among whites—until they are safely in the minority. They will continue to condemn “male sexism” and continue to promote any kind of go-girl female sexism that emasculates or devalues men. They will continue to promote reverence for their own academic priest class while condemning as “extreme” any religious belief that challenges the moral authority of progressive beliefs. They will continue to promote dependence on the State for security and income and healthcare—for life itself.

And, no matter how many “conflicts” they escalate or how many people they kill or imprison or how militarized their police state thugs become, they will officially continue to condemn “violence.”

They will continue to do all of this because it makes perfect sense for them.

If you were the rulers and toadies of a nation in decline, whose people were bound to lose wealth and status and you wanted to protect your own interests and keep your heads, why would you not want to keep those people separate, emasculated, weak, dependent, faithless, fearful and “non-violent?”

Figureheads may come and go, but I see absolutely no reason why the message will change.

Many of you may see yourselves as civilized men. Sane men in an increasingly insane, vulgar and barbaric world.

But you’re wrong! You are the new barbarians.

The official message will continue to be that:

• If you believe that all men are not created equal

• If you believe that free men should have access to firearms

• If you believe the government cannot be trusted to regulate every aspect of your life

• If you believe that race means blood and heritage — not just “skin color”

• If you see that men and women are different and believe they should have different roles

• If you believe that men should act like men

• If you believe that gay pride parades and gay marriage are ridiculous

• If you believe in some “old time religion”

If you believe any or all of those things, then, according to the State and corporations, the Academia and the media, you are a stupid, psycho, hillibilly, Neo-Nazi, woman-hating, wife-beating, homophobic throwback, reactionary Neanderthal.

You know it. Dance to it. Make it a techno remix. Because make no mistake: you are dangerous, traitorous and quite possibly seditious.

Well, I’m reminded of the words of rapper Eminem:

I am whatever you say I am

If I wasn’t then why would I say I am

Im the paperm the news, every day I am

Radio won’t even play my jam

It doesn’t matter what you think you are. You are whatever they say you are. They control the message. No matter how reasonable you think your message is, the radio is not going to play your jam. No matter what you think you are, to them, you are the barbarians. So own it… be it. And, if you’re going to be the barbarians, then start thinking like barbarians.

What does that mean? What does it mean to be a barbarian? Classically speaking, a barbarian is someone who is not of the State, of the polis. The barbarian is not properly civilized — according to the prevailing standard of the State. His ways are strange and tribal. The barbarian is an outsider, an alien.

How must a man’s thinking change, when he is alienated by the State of his birth?

How does a man go from being a man of the polis to an outsider — a barbarian — in his own homeland?

These are important questions because if you see no viable political solution to the inane and inhuman trajectory of the progressive state — and I don’t — then any meaningful change is going to require a lot more than collecting signatures or appealing to the public’s “good sense” or electing the right candidate.

What you need is to create a fundamental change in the way that men see themselves and their relationship with the State. Don’t worry about changing the state. Change the men. Cut the cord. And let them be born to a state of mind beyond the state.

Show them how to become barbarians and break the sway of the state. There is a community there of people who are exclusive, insular and interdependent. They go to each other first for what they need. They are harder to watch and harder to control. They are less dependent on the State and more dependent on each other. And when the collapse comes, they’ll take care of each other first, while everyone else is waiting for the state to “do something.”

Whoever your “us” is, whatever your “tribe” is, it’s just an idea in your head until you have a group of truly interdependent people who share the same fate. That’s what a tribe is. That’s what a community is. That is the future of identity in America.

Land belongs to those who take it and hold it. And this land is no longer your land or my land — officially it’s their land. You may not be able to reclaim it, at least not just right now, but you can become and live as happy Barbarians, as outsiders within, and work to build the kinds of resilient communities and networks of skilled people that can survive the collapse and preserve your identities after the Fall.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 19:26 | Link to Comment runningman18
runningman18's picture

Sounds like a good question to me.  How many Bitcoins would it take to buy your freedom from a crazed tyranny?  If you can't come up with a number then maybe Bitcoin despite all the hype isn't the answer to the problem.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 20:32 | Link to Comment dr kill
dr kill's picture

Dude, those aren't tities, them's the condyles of a distal tibia.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 22:26 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

I fear for the stability of your lower limbs

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 14:50 | Link to Comment WarriorClass
WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan

1. SEPARATE “US” FROM “THEM”

This conference is about the future of identity. Which identity? Who are we talking about? Who is we? When I talk to guys about what is happening in the world right now, they’re quick to tell me what we should do about it, but who is this we?

You and the corporations that sell you garbage food, ruin your land and outsource your jobs? You and the “expert” shills who turn your values into “psychological problems?” You and the paid-for media that mocks you? You and the Wall Street bankers who financialized the economy for their own short-term gain? You and the bureaucrats who want to disarm you and micromanage every aspect of your life? You and the politicians who open up the borders and fall all over themselves to pander to a new group of potential voters instead of working for the interests of the actual citizens of the country they swore to represent?

That “we?”

Americans, especially, are used to speaking in terms of “We the people.” But there are 300million people in the United States and that’s a lot of “we.” Be more specific.

Be more tribal.

One of the best pieces of writing advice I ever got was this: never say “people” when you mean “men.” Well, my advice to you is to never say “we” when you mean “they” and never say “us” when you mean “them.” Stop using democratic language. Stop pretending that we are all on the same team, because we’re not. And we don’t have to be. Decide who you really care about. Figure out what you have in common. Define your boundaries. Decide who is in and who is out. The people who are in are “us.” Those people are “we.” Everyone else this “they.”

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 03:15 | Link to Comment RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

LOL try your Ghandi reindeer games with Stalin or Mao! LOL

...and see how far those tactics got the Occupy movement.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:42 | Link to Comment kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Yes, Henry Kissinger, among most of his peers, sneered at "the efficacy of force", but that "turn the other cheek crap" only works for the occasional figure head, while the violence, force, and/or terrorism proceed in the back ground.  The founding of India is a prime example as is the history of Israel.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 12:28 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences_%28novel%29

 

Very interesting read for those inclined.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 13:30 | Link to Comment Bad Attitude
Bad Attitude's picture

I second that. Unintended Consequences is part history, part how-to, and part warning to TPTB (circa Clinton Administration). It is also a damned fine read - the only book I've truly had difficulty putting down.

Forward (over the cliff)!

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 14:50 | Link to Comment WarriorClass
WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan

2. STOP GETTING ANGRY BECAUSE THINGS DON’T MAKE SENSE!

Almost nothing you read or hear in the news today seems to make any sense at all.

People get so angry, so frustrated, so betrayed. It’s like “our leaders” are crazy or stupid, or both. It doesn’t make sense to put women in the infantry. That’s obviously crazy! It doesn’t make sense to encourage kids to take out college loans they’ll never be able to pay back. It doesn’t make sense to invite people into the country when you cannot afford to care for the people who are already here. That’s nuts!

It doesn’t make sense to start wars and then say you’re trying to “win hearts and minds.” War is not a good way to win hearts and minds! And worrying about hearts and minds is not a good way to win a war!

It doesn’t make sense that bankers and CEOs get golden parachutes and go on vacation or get jobs in the administration after knowingly and intentionally destroying companies, jobs, lives, the environment — whole segments of the economy!

But if you realize that they — the people who run the country — are doing things to benefit them and not you, everything makes perfect sense.

Consider the possibility that America’s leaders really don’t care if American soldiers live or die. Consider the possibility that American colleges and bankers don’t care if you live the rest of your life in debt to them. They’d probably prefer it. Consider the possibility that American politicians care more about keeping their jobs in the short term and looking good in the media than they do about what happens to the people of their country in the long term. Consider the possibility that “you” are not part of an “us” that “they” care about. I promise that if you meditate upon this, things will start to make a lot more sense.

If you let go of the idea that these people are supposed to care about you or the country, and you allow yourself to see them as gangs and individuals working to further their own interests, you can relax and appreciate their crafty strategy.

Let go of foolish expectations about what these people should be doing. Step back and see them for what they are. Don’t be mad. Don’t be outraged. Be wise.

As Nietzsche recommended: be carefree, mocking, and violent.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 17:59 | Link to Comment jonjon831983
jonjon831983's picture

"Document: Israeli Mossad spy agency trained young Mandela"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/document-israeli-mossad-spy-agency-trained-young-mandela/2013/12/23/9979bc7e-6c1a-11e3-aecc-85cb037b7236_story.html

 

"While confirming that Mandela toured African countries that year, and even received military training in Ethiopia, it said there was no evidence that he had any contact with Israelis."

 

Well dunno about Ghandi, but Mandela needed some help somewhere along the way :)  And really, whatever we see in the history might not cover everything that happened. How often are litle details like outside help in an internal movement tip the scales in one side's favour?

 

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:52 | Link to Comment Andre
Andre's picture

Many speak of Ghandi. Few remember Nehru.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 12:14 | Link to Comment TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

You seem to imply that the fall of Appartheid was due to non-violence.  There were thousands of innocent people murdered by the ANC to get what they wanted.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 17:18 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

And here graphically illustrated is what the ANC wrought after victory over clueless Deklerk..

 

http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-galleries-added.html

 

Although one must admit it looks better than Detroit, however Detroit may rise see link..

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/03/detroit-police-chief-want-crime-to...

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 13:40 | Link to Comment He_Who Carried ...
He_Who Carried The Sun's picture

History shows that peaceful protest is the only way to cause long-term change. The "Winter War" example is entirely out of place here. Finland was under attack and it became a fight for life. An act of self-defense in Europe's long civil war to fight Communism.

Changing an entire society needs an idea and an idea only. Violence is for those who ran out of ideas and therefore disqualified themselves as true harbinger of change. Terrorism is just that: A few impatient and grumpy guys without real ideas trying to FORCE society to turn their way like the Bolsheviks (e.g.) did...

Its for the same reason that the Warsaw Pact countries collapsed: With dissenters either shot or sent to the GULAG a sort of "pseudo-change" was forced upon the people in the early 20th century. This collapsed at the earliest faster than it takes to topple a Lenin statue on your local market place...

Among others Gandhi, MLKingJr, The Church-goers in Eastern Germany and Poland were the true power that brought inept oppressive systems finally to their knees...

It takes one large amount of education, civility, and perhaps curageous disobedience, not arms, to change a society... One must convince not shoot the "opponent". Have a good one, everyone!

 

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 14:53 | Link to Comment WarriorClass
WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan

3. DE-UNIVERSALIZE MORALITY

Men who were raised with American, Egalitarian, “Late-Western” values want to be “good men.” They want to be fair and just, and they want to be just to everyone. This can be absolutely paralyzing.

It really creates an internal conflict for men—good men—who are especially athletic or who have some kind of military or police background. They were taught and they believe in good sportsmanship and equal justice.

They want to do the “right thing,” no matter what. They want to be Batman.

However, it is also in the nature of these men—even more than other men— to think vertically, hierarchically, tribally, to think in terms of “us” and “them.” To evaluate others naturally, primally, by the masculine, tactical virtues of strength, courage, mastery and honor.

But as soon as the football game or the superhero movie is over, progressive America goes back to hating and punishing those virtues. Progressive America goes back to hating and punishing men who act like men. These “good guys”… these guys who want to be heroes get blamed and played and dumped on and treated like garbage.

No matter what the progressive American message is, when it comes to men who act like men—especially white men—no one really cares if they get treated justly or fairly.

Still, these “good guys” don’t want to exclude women from anything because it seems unfair they have sisters and mothers and they want everyone to have a chance. But women—as a group—don’t care when men feel excluded.

In fact, when men object to anything, groups of women are the first to call them “whiners” and “losers.” “Good” white guys as a group care about what happens to black people as a group. They want to make sure that blacks are being treated fairly and equally and they go out of their way to make sure they aren’t “discriminating.”

Do black people as a group care what happens to white people as a group? Does a Mexican dad with three babies care whether or not some white kid from the “burbs” can get a summer landscaping job?

The problem with these late Western values is that they work best as intra-tribal values.

They only work when everyone else is connected and interdependent. Fairness and justice and good sportsmanship promote harmony within a community. But at some point, you have to draw that line. You have to decide who is part of that community and who is not.

You cannot play fair with people who don’t care if you get wiped off the map. You don’t have to hate everyone who isn’t part of your tribe, but it is foolish to keep caring about people who don’t care about you.

These heroic types are the natural guardians of any tribe, but their heroic natures are wasted and abused when they are asked to protect everyone, even enemies and ingrates and those who despise them.

If Western Barbarians are going to hold onto any portion of their western heritage and identity, they need to resolve these moral conflicts.

They don’t necessarily need to abandon morality or moral virtue, but they need to pull in theiraegis and become, as in Plato’s Republic, ”noble dogs who are gentle to their familiars and the opposite to strangers.”

Be morally accountable. But only to the tribe.

If they are going to prosper and endure in a failing nation, the New Barbarians must give up the tragic, misunderstood hero routine and realize that they aren’t Batman. Why would anyone want to be?

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 20:13 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

damn that's good, warriorclass. wish i wrote that. the problem i have with the concept of violent revolution is what does it leave you with, even if you win? i love our american system. it's really screwed up right now, but the system isn't the problem. the problem is the people in the system. they are temporary. not worth attacking the system over. sadam huissein could never have imagined a noose around his neck. mubarek could never imagine sitting in a jail cell. plenty of bankers and .gov types can't imagine the fate that awaits them, from the hand of the state they so carelessly abused. it's coming. and not from some militia or lone wolf. the system will correct. it has to. the smart people running the show have been lucky. luck can be fleeting.

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 11:47 | Link to Comment WarriorClass
WarriorClass's picture

The problem is, starfcker, your only choice is a violent revolution or slavery and death.  But make no mistake, there will be a violent revolution, not because we start one - but because the powers-that-be want it.  They've been bitch-slapping America for the last 20 years trying to provoke it; and now they're getting serious.  You may not want it, but it is being forced upon you - like it or not.  The only option now is to win, and re-establish the Consitution as the Law of the Land.

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 13:07 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

WC, I watch people wake up every day. even among congress, there are lots of members who were promised an outcome and are begining to regret this path for the country. obamacare may be the bridge too far. harry reid's nuclear option may come back to bite him. lots of things we might never expect, and more importantly, the assholes running things might not expect, can happen in this kind of toxic environment. i'm a believer that unexpected change is part of life. some of this is generational. the generation in power now is getting long in the tooth. there are too many factions that could overplay their hand, it's bound to happen. i think the snowden thing has more value than people realize. it's a slow burn, but it can't be put out. let's see how the next year goes. see you at FEMA camp

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 17:19 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Quick tell George Washington and the boys..

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:47 | Link to Comment BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

The Finns absolutely did NOT use "guerilla tactics" during the war. They had a conventionally organized and equipped army and air force that used knowledge of the terrain to their advantage. Their soldiers wore uniforms and fought force-on-force engagements. The Russians did not occupy significant parts of Finland and there were no non-uniformed cadres sniping Russians, blowing up attacking logistical routes, power lines, assassinating political leaders, etc.

The terrain (marsh and snow) forced the Russians into narrow lanes of advance so the Russians could not use their numerical superiority to overwhelm the Finns. The light infantry configuration of the Finnish army actually helped them in this situation as they were more tactically mobile and could move over a wider variety of terrain, allowing them localized flanking counter attack opportunities. This light infantry maneuver is NOT "guerilla tactics," but rather standard light infantry tactics employed skillfully by the Finnish forces.

 

It was a conventional war expertly fought by Finland, whose army was led by an ex-Soviet general, by the way.

The Finnish example has nothing to do with how a people guard their freedom from internal threats.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 12:44 | Link to Comment skifff
skifff's picture

"The Finnish example has nothing to do with how a people guard their freedom from internal threats." -exactly!

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 15:00 | Link to Comment WarriorClass
WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan

4. BECOME INDEPENDENT FROM THE STATE, AND INTERDEPENDENT BETWEEN EACH OTHER

The United States of America and its parent corporations offer a wide range of products and services. All of them have strings attached and the more you depend on them, the easier it is to control you.

It is not really much of a threat to them if you get online and “like” a naughty page or vent your lonely, impotent rage, so long as the rest of your identity folds neatly into the bourgeois American lifestyle.

So long as you still go to a make-work job at some big company and keep yourself busy for 40 or 50 or 60 hours a week so you can purchase their wide range of products and services.

And then, in the time you have left, you go online and you get to be Orthodox guy or Roman guy or Odinist guy and post cool pics of Vikings and Centurions and Crusaders.

But that’s not a real identity or a real tribe or a real community. By all means, use the Progressive State and take whatever you can from it while there is still something left to take, but if you truly want some kind of “alternative lifestyle” to what the state has to offer, if you want to maintain some kind of tribal identity that can endure America’s decline and collapse—also known as a sudden absence of adequate products and services—instead of “community organizing” on the Internet in your underwear or retreating to a country compound with the wife and kids, bring some of those Internet people close to you and live near each other. Take over a neighborhood or an apartment complex, start businesses and provide services that people really need.

It’s great to have writers and thinkers, but you also need mechanics and plumbers and seamstresses. Serve everyone, but be loyal to people “in the family” and make them “your own.”

It doesn’t have to be some formal thing. Don’t issue a press release. Just start quietly building a community of like-minded men and women somewhere. Anywhere.

Don’t worry about creating some massive political movement or recruiting thousands or millions of people. Don’t worry about changing the state. Barbarians don’t worry about changing the state. That’s for men of the state — who believe in and belong to the State.

Shoot for 150 people. A small, close-knit community of people working together to become less dependent on the State and more dependent on each other.

Recent immigrants—many of whom are literally “not of the State”—can serve as examples. It wasn’t long ago that the Irish and Italians lived in insular communities. Think of Russian parts of town.

Look at places like Chinatown in San Francisco: every few blocks, you see these buildings marked. Something . . . something . . . something . . .   “Benevolent Association.”

Sounds nice, right? Could be a front for Triad Gangs. Could be there to help Chinese schoolchildren. I have no idea. But I am sure that it is for Chinese people. There are also doctor offices and law offices and repair shops and grocery stores. There is a whole network there of people taking care of their own people first.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 17:24 | Link to Comment stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

mannerheim and most of the top finnish officers were german trained, not russian.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 22:30 | Link to Comment BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

Sorry, but Mannerheim was a career officer in the Imperial Russian Army, rising to the rank of Lieutentant General. He was influential with Czar Nicholas, a loyal Romanov, and an ardent anti-RED. He was influential in the succession of Finalnd from the Soviet Union. He was in no way German trainined. In any event, German aid did not go to Finland until after hostilities broke out between NAZI Germany and the Soviet Union. His German sounding name is the result of lineage. His ancestors moved from Germany to Sweden, I believe in the 1600's. His family became Swedish aristocracy and when the area transfered from Swedish to Russian domination, the family became Russian aristocracy. 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 20:58 | Link to Comment runningman18
runningman18's picture

Actually, you should read 'Frozen Hell', the Finnish basically perfected guerrilla warfare tactics.  Calling them "light infantry tactics" feels more like semantics than an honest accounting of what the Finns term "Motti".  Ambushes, hit and run, snipers like the White Death, low tech versus high tech like molotovs versus tanks, using natural terrain to funnel the bad guys into kill zones, this is all quintessential to the guerilla strategy.  The Finnish adapted to a much bigger opponent with little to no high tech resources, this is what guerilla tactics are all about.  

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 22:08 | Link to Comment BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

It's more than semantics. You do not understand the term "guerilla warfare." Tactical agility like ambushing, hit and run, etc., are in no way unique to "guerrilla warfare." Just because you fight a larger oppenent does not make you a "guerilla" either. It was a conventional force on force conlict. The trade marks of guerilla warfare are partisan forces blending into the local population, relying primarily upon local resources, to wage a sustained low level attrition campaign against external, occupying forces. 

Believe me, I take nothing away from the accomplishments of the Finns, but it was not guerilla warfare. Because of their successful defense against Russia, they did not need to resort to that type of warfare.

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 05:41 | Link to Comment runningman18
runningman18's picture

The Finns themselves often refer to the tactics used during the Winter War as "guerilla warfare".  Again, you obviously haven't read up on the history of the event and are espousing opinion rather than fact.

Blending into a local population is only one small aspect of the guerilla strategy.  The basis of guerilla tactics rely on asymmetric warfare, and the use of low-tech versus high-tech.  To say that the Finns were using "light infantry tactics" rather than guerilla tactics is a rather obtuse utilization of semantics.  Most Finns would agree that they were not using standard light infantry tactics when they fought the soviets. If they had, they would have lost the war. 

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 23:53 | Link to Comment BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

Sorry, dude, I know what I am talking about. I have even been to Finland, seen the fighting ground with my own eyes, and have never heard a Finn speak of the Winter War as a Guerilla War. And these were conversations with military officers. I could go on about my qualifications and expertise, but why waste my time?

That you claim Mannerheim was German trained shows you really have no idea what you are talking about. I did err in saying he was "ex-Soviet." But to me, all Russians are ex-Soviet. An old habit from an old cold-warrior.

 

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 13:33 | Link to Comment bh2
bh2's picture

Modern Finnish forces during the Soviet era (and presumably still) are well equipped to fight invasion on their own native terrain, which is ill-suited for tank combat operations the Russians rely on. One of the more interesting features of their infantry is that they travel on sturdy, custom bikes, which gives them the mobility of cavalry across lake-filled, marshy ground which is also heavily forested. Tanks simply sink up to the axel, leaving infantry forces no heavy ordinance for covering fire.

As one Finnish industrialist said to me during the 80's, "When you hear people talk about 'Finlandization' (coerced neutrality), let me assure you it's complete nonsense. The Russians have no appetite for attacking us -- and we'll be happy to take them on if they ever cross our borders."

There is probably no historical animosity exceeding that which the Finns have for the Russians. And anyone who knows the Finns also knows they are very thorough people who believe nothing is worth doing unless done well. In a word, they are perfectionists. It therefore seems credible they would be quite thorough if the task at hand were to grind up Russian invaders in quantity.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 17:11 | Link to Comment skifff
skifff's picture

"There is probably no historical animosity exceeding that which the Finns have for the Russians." - yes, of cause, considering that it was Russia that created an independent Finland and all the way supported Finnish language instead of forcing Russian... you know like "white men" do.;-)

"Russians have no appetite for attacking us" - that is true, why?

As far as Bikes vs. Russian Army... yeah that'll work;-) sure!;-)

One simple fact: Finnish army armor divisions using mainly export versions of Soviet T-55 and T-72, BMP-1/2, MTLB... Since 2005 they started buying old used German Leopard-2A4 (heavier than T-72 by 20 tonnes... it's probably "good" for their terrain;-)) they say: in an effort to "fit NATO standards";-))) 

"...we'll be happy to take them on..." - priceless!;-)


Sat, 01/04/2014 - 17:20 | Link to Comment stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

read "A Frozen Hell",  Fins were forced to develop tactics that worked,  they were an outdoors people use to the extreme temperatures.  they mostly all knew how to ski, how to survive in cold.  what to eat, they knew their terrain and what approaches a roadbound conventional army would likely use to attack.

 

sisu, the fins had it by the truckload.  old timey tough you might say.  on a daily basis i look at my surrounding humanity and see 1 in 50 that would stand up.  

 

a majority of finnish machine gunners had to undergo psycho-therapy for the incredible butchery they inflicted.

 

the fins lost in the end, they gave the soviet union the disputed areas and some additional land in a truce, but they astounded the world with their stand.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:09 | Link to Comment Dane Bramage
Dane Bramage's picture

Simo Häyhä!!

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:09 | Link to Comment ArsoN
ArsoN's picture

The White Death...

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:10 | Link to Comment Rick Blaine
Rick Blaine's picture

For those who don't know about him, google his name.

Some seriously badass shit.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 09:35 | Link to Comment NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

I just put it into Wikipedia to get a quick overview.... 500+ kills with a Mosin-Nagant using IRON SIGHTS (apparently he didn't like popping his head up and extra inch to use a scope).  Oh, and he was doing all this in sub-zero weather conditions, which I imagine also includes plenty of gusty wind and snow.  It goes on and on.

If even half of that is true, it's already beyond badass.

Thanks for the suggestion.  Definitely worth the read.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:46 | Link to Comment new game
new game's picture

you could start practicing yearly with deer. also as a side note, one could pracitce w/o live ammo with friends. bang your dead! wonderfull game of suspense killing fellow humanoids for fun(and realisticly imagining past conflictZ).

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:17 | Link to Comment 25or6to4
25or6to4's picture

800+ kills ? Simo definately had sisu.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:33 | Link to Comment Richard Chesler
Richard Chesler's picture

The Obozo propaganda machine would turn that into 800 million million at a finger snap.

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 04:13 | Link to Comment Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

Very seldom that one man makes a difference. In his case I make an exception.

The Russians diverted very significant resources to kill the white death, all of which failed (pretty much).

Almost a superhuman effort.

The fact he was just a man should make us all think.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:10 | Link to Comment 25or6to4
25or6to4's picture

Yeah right, soviets suffered 125,000 dead. Most estimates are close to a million . Soviets were so inept that they used civil war era tactics of mass charging attacts to attempt to take out machine gun nests. Watch the documentary Fire and Ice for all the macabre details. Finns owned the entire battlefield using attack and evade tactics, most could country ski and had back woods skills. So much for giving Finland to Stalin for his 60th birthday gift.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 03:13 | Link to Comment RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

I seem to recall reading Uncle Joe was worried troops from the area might be somewhat loyal to the Finns, so he brought in divisions from the south...who were in no way acclimated to winter weather... leading to poor morale, frozen men, and even worse performance that what could be expected after you murdered most of your military's officers. 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 13:47 | Link to Comment skifff
skifff's picture

"soviets suffered 125,000 dead. Most estimates are close to a million" - yeah try 10 million why not?
considering that war started with 80 battalions of Finns (130 thousand soldiers)in concrete fortifications(of witch Red Army had no clue... ) against 84 battalions of Red Army (164 thousand soldiers)with tanks with "anti bullet armor".

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:49 | Link to Comment Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

The Finns had several factors in their favor that do not currently exist in America. First they were being invaded by a clearly discernable enemy that could easily be identified that showed no mercy and gave no quarter. For the Finns it was a clear choice between fight or die. Second, the Finnish state sanctioned and championed the resistance giving the resistance fighters legitimacy in the eyes of their countrymen. Thirdly, the full force of the military with its cadre of officers and material got behind the fight. For those factors to be even marginally present in the United States, Home Land Security would have to invade South Carolina. A food riot is not a revolution. It may give rise to a revolution but it is not a revolution it is an event. Nothing will happen until the government over reacts.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:38 | Link to Comment Martel
Martel's picture

For Finns, fighting or dying were not the only options. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia fell to the Soviets without a war, and similarly Finland could have surrendered without a fight. In hindsight, fighting was the least bad choice: the Baltic countries eventually lost more people per capita than Finland during WW2, plus they lost their freedom for 50 years. The number of Estonians is less in 2014 than it was in 1939. The number of Finns has grown about 50% since WW2. Finland's figures would look much worse though, had the Russians managed to occupy Finland. All resistance does not end up well.

One way for Americans to 'fight' their enemy is just to stop supporting the state. Don't vote, avoid paying direct and indirect taxes by all legal loopholes, avoid all kinds of deals with the state whenever possible. If you have a superior product or service, don't accept any government agency as your client. Move your money out of the U.S. dollar, into gold, silver, bitcoin and other non-government alternatives. Don't work in the public sector. Absolutely don't work for the police, NSA, CIA, TSA or any other alphabet soup agency. If you do, make it your priority to leak information about their wrongdoings, and don't get caught. If you find your life intolerable, remember there are other countries available. Life e.g. in the Eastern Europe is relatively free, Germany has very good privacy laws etc.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:47 | Link to Comment rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

@Martel - +1000. Smartest comment on the board about this subject. That last paragraph sums it up brilliantly.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 20:20 | Link to Comment Rafferty
Rafferty's picture

Remember as well that all of the Baltic countries had huge numbers of their own ethnics deported and replaced by ethnic Russians.  This continues to cause problems, especially in Latvia where fully 30% of the population is ethnic Russian.  Assimilation has not been successful.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 14:20 | Link to Comment skifff
skifff's picture

yeah, concidering that Finns were offered territory twice the size of what was asked to move border bit further from Leningrad, before the war... Finland got indipendance from "blodythirsty soviets" 19 years before the conflict. Hmmm... may be you don't know s.t.?

"For the Finns it was a clear choice between fight or die"  - sure;-))) Yeah, right! Red Army came to kill!!!

...During ther war in Finland 956 civilians were killed...

Get your facts straight! Because it's sounds more like propoganda from dr.Goebbels

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 19:22 | Link to Comment Rafferty
Rafferty's picture

I'm sorry but you're the one with history shortfall.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:42 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

the revolutionary war was a war of succession from England that enjoyed very little support from the majority of American colonists who were called Tories which are modern day republicans. You will never have a majority of support for change, thus the problem with democracy, (which your overlords know and why they are constantly brainwashing the public into believing that we live in a democracy) as opposed to a republic that demands the citizenry to overthrow a tyrannical government.

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 08:16 | Link to Comment Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

How is that in principle different from dictatorship? Ah, Freedom, for the select few who agree with you. Logic please.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:20 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

Logic? The Constitution spells out the "logic" now go try and refuse a pat down at the airport and and assert a few more of your right when you are in that little holding cell get back to me on your majority rule dill weed. I'm sure the sheep majority will spring to action when they hear your muffled screams. When you are reduced to begging for what is your birth right then you may want to recognize the truth that you are living in a dictatorship.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:53 | Link to Comment Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

Hey brave genius, Republic is rule by a minority over a majority. Democracy is rule by the majority over themselves. It's all about how society develops. The mechanism of Democracy is not inherently flawed, but the mechanism of Republic is just a sanitized appelation for dictatorship, not any different than what the bankers are doing to you now.

Yes, logic.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:12 | Link to Comment logicalman
logicalman's picture

'Democracy' is just the tyrranny of the many over the few.

A unworkable concept, given voting is a one-bit system it can't hold any real information.

If you believe your "representatives" represent anyone but themselves you are truly deluded.

Anarchism is the ruling of the self and accepting resposnsibility for one's own actions.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 23:38 | Link to Comment Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

In order to consider what systems are viable, we have to also consider society freed from the tyranny of the oligarchs / brainwashing. Otherwise, none of the systems work anyway.

My point is, yes, today, given the cultural conditioning at work, democracy would be tough because most people are brainwashed not to care. But none of the other systems would work either, because those doing the brainwashing would undermine all other forms of autonomous self-determination.

But in a world where we stop that brainwashing and reintroduce societal responsibilities i.e. being informed, then democracy is the closest thing to fair that we currently know of.

I hold that republicanism, where a few enlightened (oligarchs) determine what the rest of the country will experience, is nothing but a dictatorship. I would point out that conceptually, this is not different from the benevolent leaders described in Walden II, which many here would chide as utopian.

My hope is that we can evolve as a citizenry to the point where everyone has a good grasp of the socio-econo-political construct and chooses to participate in a way that we won't need leaders. That would be a form of democracy.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 16:28 | Link to Comment atomicwasted
atomicwasted's picture

The war enjoyed virtually universal support from the colonists.  That's why it was successful and why it ended in some degree of liberty rather than yet another king.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:43 | Link to Comment 123dobryden
123dobryden's picture

majority of them is not sitting with their head between their legs, they are activly supporting this system, as they

1./ are keep to think from the very childhood, that this is the best they can get

2./ they are kept in bigger and bigger dependance, thus becoming weak

 

the decay will reach its climax in the west, but it seems a generation if not  light years away, any attempt of violence now will face the faith of baader-meinhoff.

moreover, e.g. russian revolution 1917 that was supposed to be a great liberating force from tzarist despotizm and opression, only brought even more horrible and terrifying system...

well we have internet now, but as you can see THEY know that we have it and they act accordingly

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:48 | Link to Comment 123dobryden
123dobryden's picture

On the other hand we had this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

 

Ukrainian anarchist guerrilla bands were active during the Russian Civil War. Some claimed to be loyal to the Ukrainian state, but others acknowledged no allegiance; all fought both Red and White Russians with equal ferocity in the opening stages of the Civil War. Of all the anarchist groups, the most famous and successful was that of the peasant anarchist leader Nestor Makhno, aka Batko ("Father"), who began operations in the southeastern Ukraine against the Hetmanate regime in July 1918. In September, he formed the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, or Anarchist Black Army, with arms and equipment largely obtained from retreating Austro-Hungarian and German forces. During the Civil War, the Black Army numbered between 15,000 and 110,000 men[2] and was organized on conventional lines, with infantry, cavalry, and artillery units; artillery batteries were attached to each infantry brigade. Makhno's cavalry incorporated both regular and irregular horse-mounted (guerrilla) forces, and was considered among the best-trained and most capable of any of the cavalry units deployed by any side in the Russian Civil War

 

i urge everyone to read this

 

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 08:50 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

Re: Nestor Makhno - reminds me of our banned friend 'Joyful' (it was his avatar).

Free Francis Sawyer!!

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 22:43 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

Joyful got banned too?

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:59 | Link to Comment FightingtheFed
FightingtheFed's picture

Dude. I thought i was radical.. You make me feel like a pacifist.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:59 | Link to Comment FightingtheFed
FightingtheFed's picture

Dude. I thought i was radical.. You make me feel like a pacifist.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:44 | Link to Comment BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

economics9698, the reason for the down arrow, at least for me, is because you are a crazy nut job anti-semite blinded by your own bigotry and apparently of dangerously violent inclination. There is nothing "military 101" about any of your insane rants.

 

 

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 04:22 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

The notion that violence solves anything, is predicated on the ideology that has failed over and over. That ideology is "might makes right."

Unfortunately this is self-contradictory, since it only makes right for those with greater might, and only lasts as long as the might that remains the greatest. Goodbye might = goodbye right. Such a notion is morally indefensible, since it requires the initiation of force on somebody.

Might makes right is not universally preferable.

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:50 | Link to Comment A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Ease into it by killing redheads..........

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 13:04 | Link to Comment toady
toady's picture

Why not? They have no souls.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:03 | Link to Comment nickt1y
nickt1y's picture

Both are vegetables .....

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:05 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Why? Because the carrot isn't a murderous thieving savage and the fellow human is.

That is a problem.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:43 | Link to Comment xavi1951
xavi1951's picture

Actually, the carrot can be traced to all kinds of illnesses.  People consume carrots all the time and they still have aflictions ergo the carrot is the culprit because they eat carrots.

Ignore other factors, the carrot is the cause.  Eat beef!

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:06 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

For sure there is correlation there.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:20 | Link to Comment JimS
JimS's picture

If that "fellow human" was trying to enslave me I see all kinds of "equivalence".

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:06 | Link to Comment CoonT
CoonT's picture

Depends on the human...and the carrot too, I suppose. Let's say you put Feinstien*, up beside one of those cute little baby carrots; and one of 'ems gotta go-  see, that's not really much of a decision at all now, is it?

 

*In this day and age, almost any "in tha club" politician will do..

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:05 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

I know what you mean. How has a carrot ever hurt anyone? ( Bwarny "Hot Bottom" Fwank excluded )

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 12:35 | Link to Comment GovernmentMule
GovernmentMule's picture

A carrot does not exert control over you, regulate you, steal and/or appropriate your property through coercion and the threat of physical force and violence or detain or imprison you as governments do.

 

Hope that clears it up for you...

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 13:55 | Link to Comment TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

As long as the fellow human isn't stealing your carrots, yeah.  If they are, no, no problem at all.

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:37 | Link to Comment VD
VD's picture

KILL KILL KILL

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:17 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

First they came for the libertarians, and I did nothing.

After they were all dead, nobody cared that they were slaves.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 03:35 | Link to Comment trembo slice
trembo slice's picture

logged in just to upvote this.  bout spit my drink out

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:34 | Link to Comment bigrooster
bigrooster's picture

Exactly!  We already have 47% who don't care because the government takes care of them and they have their Obobo phone.  Then the top 1% are perfectly happy in control of the rest of us who actually work, pay taxes and still love this country and freedom.

The III% will keep America free at all cost.  Many will die and be labeled domestic terrorists and racists rednecks.  But history will look back and realize that if it was not for these few willing to fight freedom would be lost forever.

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 04:29 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Libertarians are the new LBGT "untouchables."

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 04:28 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

2X post. Goddamed backspace bullshit.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:02 | Link to Comment forwardho
forwardho's picture

Your our boy.

Now go over and sit on that bench marked "group W"

Thats right son... right next to the father rapers.

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:38 | Link to Comment Millivanilli
Millivanilli's picture

A simple guide. 

 

Act alone

Say nothing

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:09 | Link to Comment Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

Well put. I would add to publish a manifesto.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 06:47 | Link to Comment Millivanilli
Millivanilli's picture

To add absurdity, we could have someone like Corizine, Blankfein, Thain, Fuld, or Mozilo write the preface on how they raped America with the help of central bankers, regulators, the executive, legislative and executive branches, and got off scot free.

 

'Skat' is a Scandinavian word for tax or payment and the word migrated to Britain and mutated into 'scot' as the name of a redistributive taxation, levied as early the 10th century as a form of municipal poor relief.

'Scot' as a term for tax has been used since then in various forms - Church scot, Rome scot, Soul scot and so on. Whatever the tax, the phrase 'getting off scot free' simply refers to not paying one's taxes.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 08:07 | Link to Comment greatbeard
greatbeard's picture

>> getting off scot free

I haven't paid any taxes in three years now, all legal.  I got fed up with the bull shit and dropped out.  It certainly a different kind of retirement than I'd envisioned but there is some smug satisfaction in not being part of the system that give some pleasure.

Oh, and thanks for the scot history, interesting.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:00 | Link to Comment new game
new game's picture

i sense a minimalizt in the crowd. hail minimalizm with anon. to be near scot free, soaking up the waste and over abundance in a extremely wastefull system...

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 11:56 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

We may see crimes imposed on those who fail to consume for the greater good. We'll call these consimer enemies, Anti-Krudmnaites ( PBUH ).

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:45 | Link to Comment Oldballplayer
Oldballplayer's picture

That's Bully-talk. Bullies are bad. Bullies make gay kids kill themselves.

We need to talk about our feelings more. We need to have the government understand us better.

Perhaps we could put on a puppet show.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 10:54 | Link to Comment Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

Learn the not so subtle differences. Less Blunt, more Refined. Foo...l!

According to your logic, it's ok for you to torment a little girl, because you see equivalence between opposing oppression and being oppressive. Why bother fighting the bankers when you're just like them?  Sour grapes?

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 08:50 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Punch & Judy.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:05 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

The Winter War was one of the most brutal wars that no one ever heard of.   A case where very white folks can be very very tough and brutal.  The hapless Russian and Soviet conscripts were slaughtered like poor sheep.   The Finns lost at least 25% of their population.  Sort of like losing everyone west of the Rockies.

The problem is Americans are EASILY brainwashed and controlled by TV and Hollywood.  Conservatives and libertarians are duped into thinking Fox News is their friend and savior along with Mockingbird talk radio. 

The idiots of all stripes have pro sports and college ball to distract them. Women have Oprah, Ellen, Today Show and other crap to convince them that white males are the evil in the universe.  Total brainwashing and total sheepdom.   I would be 75% of ZH posters watch TV and Hollywood's crap.  So unless it all falls apart - don't hold your breath.

They will use TV to demonize you if you get anything going and you just play along by paying for cable or sat Tv each month.  Sheep. 

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:44 | Link to Comment Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

For us mainly the Weather Channel in the morning. Important at this time of the year to know in advance whether we're at elevated bushfire risk (and so might expect to need to relocate pronto!).

Other than that, Natural History / Wildlife documentaries. No need to watch anything else.

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 04:34 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

For us mainly the Climate Change Drama Bullshit Channel in the morning.

FIFY. I go with Accuweather or something similar, on my phone/laptop. All the data, less bullshit. FWIW.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 03:20 | Link to Comment SilverRhino
SilverRhino's picture

Simo Hayha was THE ultimate bad-a$$ in that war.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 20:18 | Link to Comment Hobbleknee
Hobbleknee's picture

That's him in the preview thumbnail.  Over the course of 100 days, he killed 542 Russians with his rifle and 150 with his SMG in 20-40 degree below zero weather.

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 03:52 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

During that Winter War, in a moment of desperation that led to innovation, the Finns came up with a concoction that still frightens dictators and tyrants alike.

Ironically enough, this concoction was named after their enemy's general: The Molotov Cocktail.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 08:28 | Link to Comment Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

IED. :-)

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 12:10 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

It was named after the Soviets Foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Duh, of course. Had a "senior moment".

Rhetorical Q: Time to start thinking about. Clinton or Kerry Cocktail? How about a Cheney, Rumsfeld or Neocon Cocktail?

Just sayin'.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 08:55 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

 

"Sort of like losing everyone west of the Rockies"

Actually, that seems like a good starting point!

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 12:06 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

FOX, National Review, Rush, GOP are control products to stear con sheeple.

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 03:42 | Link to Comment TheLoveArtist
TheLoveArtist's picture

Guess that is why the World Jewish Congress encourages Jews to control media in all countries they can make inroads into.  Case example of practice what you preach look at the Head of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald Lauder son of Estee Lauder and makeup kingpin who put up the millions of dollars to start CME

International businessman and President of the Jewish National Fund, Ronald S. Lauder combines a deep commitment to his heritage with an innovative network of business enterprises in a mosaic of philanthropic and professional endeavors that reaches around the world.

Dedicated to long-term, free market investment in Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries as they emerge from communism, he is Chairman and primary stockholder of Central European Media Enterprises Ltd., investing in and operating broadcast television in Eastern and Central Europe. The company is now a leading television broadcaster with stations reaching 97 million people in seven countries.

Figure the Jooos need to control the eyes and ears of Eastern Europe, that is fertile THIEVING GROUND

CME is a media and entertainment company operating leading businesses in primarily six Central and Eastern European markets: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. We operate 35 television channels as well Voyo, our pan-regional subscription video-on-demand service and a portfolio of more than 70 websites. We broadcast to approximately 50 million people across our six markets.

Think about all the JOOOO control of media in the USA now the head of their world jewish congress is spearheading the Tribes move back into Eastern Europe.....

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:26 | Link to Comment Confundido
Confundido's picture

In my view, Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Mandela obtained way more than any violent initiative crystallized during the XX century. And yes, others like every country in the American continent obtained their independence fighting the English and Spaniards. But that does not mean that they would have not gotten the same in even better conditions, if they had tried to do so with non-violent, non-cooperation, aka civil disobedience.

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:32 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

"...non-violent, non-cooperation, aka civil disobedience."

Yep.

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:39 | Link to Comment Confundido
Confundido's picture

For instance, today, if we wanted to bring this system down, all we have to do is simply shift all our financial assets like savings accounts balances, guaranteed certificates, shares, bonds, etc. to our chequing accounts, forcing a liquidity run. Within a week of concerted action, we would have every fiat currency political system at our feet. And all it takes is the click of a mouse. We don't even need to withdraw the funds from the banks, because the system is so fucked up already. And then, if necessary, we would withdraw said funds and even if we kept the money under the mattress, there would be not one single government that would survive such move. No need for violence. In fact, violent action would lead to a sure and painful defeat.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:56 | Link to Comment 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

Confundida needs to read up more on Mandelas "non violence"

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 09:15 | Link to Comment Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

And Gandhi's advocacy of "non-violence".

Here, for example.

http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/articles/oct0801.htm

But before you go around bashing heads, realize you have to be an enlightened person to wisely differentiate between when you are being violent to minimize violence, or when you're just being a dick because you want things in a certain way in opposition to how someone else wants things, or when you're being a total dick because you want things that benefit you while enshrining others in suffering and poverty.

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:29 | Link to Comment Professorlocknload
Professorlocknload's picture

So, the Tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed with ATM Receipts from time to time, rather than the blood of Patriots and Tyrants?

My, how times have changed.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 05:58 | Link to Comment Four chan
Four chan's picture

i completely agree with this. you have to call ahead to get 20k out of a bank today. 

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:40 | Link to Comment maskone909
maskone909's picture

The ..gov contracted with mafiosos to help take out the kkk, their primary goal. Mlk, racism, was just part of making folks think they were attaining equality. This swayed opinion against the kkk....

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:55 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. – M.K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of the Sword.

Ghandi was no pacifist.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:02 | Link to Comment mjcOH1
mjcOH1's picture

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.". - Mahatma Gandhi

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:06 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

F*** - they still do in India!  Look at those muslims who took over that city and hotel.  There 10 of them with AK-47 chewing chat or some other narcotic.   They had the whole damn town tied up as the cops and military had 38 revolvers and .303 Enfields and they had no clue what they were doing.  Lots of brave souls but many got shot down.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 22:50 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

Yeah? You should see what two teenagers did to Boston!

Tue, 01/07/2014 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

wasn't two teens. wasn't Adam Lanza, either.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:29 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Britain, US,  Britain.   

 

Those things have more to do with any change than Ghandi, MLK and Mandela.  Had those men been in different countries using the same tactics, they would be unknown to us today.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:55 | Link to Comment 25or6to4
25or6to4's picture

Indeed jwoop66. One wonders how sucessful Ghandi would have been had he been dealing with Stalin instead of Churchhill.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:35 | Link to Comment Jorgen
Jorgen's picture

In my view, Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Mandela obtained way more than any violent initiative crystallized during the XX century.

Mandela did orchestrate and did participate in a 'violent initiative crystallized during the XX century.' He should not be put in the same sentence with Ghandi and MLK. I see you are indeed confused 'Confundido.'

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:33 | Link to Comment cat writer
cat writer's picture

There were other forces in India at the time of Gandhi that had no reservations whatsoever about using violent means to gain independence from Britain.   There were plenty of Indian WWII veterans with combat experience.   Had Britain persisted in retaining its empire, it would have faced violent resistance.   Had Britain been as fanatical as Hitler or Stalin, Gandhi would have had to be either a guerilla or executed prisoner.

Furthermore, the India that Gandhi left was no real improvement.   First, there was the conflict between Hindus and Muslims which had to go back over a millennium.   Second, India was socialist, taking about 35 years to get rid of some of that nonsense. 

 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:19 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Third - India still has it's class system.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 03:09 | Link to Comment Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

The never mentioned reality is that the "little people" of India - those permanently stuck in the really shitty jobs, (e.g. the "Untouchables") really did NOT want the Brits to leave, since under the Raj they had a far, far better deal than they had ever had (or for that matter would have ever had) under the rule of their "own" people.

Numerically, the majority were happy with British rule - they were getting either a better deal, or as good a deal as they had in the past. The ones agitating to remove the Brits were those in the upper echelons of Indian Society - the ones who had seen their power and influence eroded, the ones with "the right connections", the Families of Influence that still rule India, as they always had.

My Parents were in India right at the end - civilians working for the Times of India. The reality they saw was a very different reality from the "inequality" preached by Ghandi and his followers.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:47 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

and I am guessing you have not been to India, Selma Alabama or Cape Town lately. 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:25 | Link to Comment TheMeatTrapper
TheMeatTrapper's picture

I live in Alabama. Tell me about Selma. I was there a few months ago. When was the last time you were there? 

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:00 | Link to Comment FightingtheFed
FightingtheFed's picture

A little further study and one will find that those mentioned in your article had interests that dove tailed perfectly with a much more vocal influential and  seeimingly omnipresent minority interest group...

If they did not then you wouldn't know them today since this interest group controls the Media in the US along w/ the Federal reserve and the banks.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 02:03 | Link to Comment FightingtheFed
FightingtheFed's picture

A little further study and one will find that those mentioned in your article had interests that dove tailed perfectly with a much more vocal influential and  seeimingly omnipresent minority interest group...

If they did not then you wouldn't know them today since this interest group controls the Media in the US along w/ the Federal reserve and the banks.

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 00:44 | Link to Comment onearmedlove
onearmedlove's picture

Too bad your comment is +5 and -28, this confirms my thought the readership here is just as borderline braindamaged as any subset of the population.  Violence is exactly what any government would WANT because it gives them justification to do anything. 

Sun, 01/05/2014 - 14:15 | Link to Comment TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Tell that to anyone who tried non-violent means against any communist regime.  I can't think of one that succeeded.  Russia doesn't really count because that was top down and to this day a communist honcho is in charge.

Non-violent means against communists tends to end violently with the non-violent types in mass graves.  Your point is bullshit.

Non-violence only has a chance against societies that are humanitarian at heart.  None of the socialist/fascist/communists are humanitarian in the least.  Stop buying their propaganda.  Stop being a useful idiot.

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:25 | Link to Comment Gromit
Gromit's picture

Sorry but no way was the Russian Army of 1939 "Technologically advanced."

Fri, 01/03/2014 - 23:50 | Link to Comment economics9698
economics9698's picture

A million men with Mosin Nagants is pretty fucking advanced to me.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 00:18 | Link to Comment JimS
JimS's picture

Compared to the Finns, at that time, it sure the hell was, you dumbass.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 01:04 | Link to Comment runningman18
runningman18's picture

Just watch some old news reels of the Soviets and their massive military parades.  They had weaponry that dwarfed the Finnish, which is why the Finn victory is so impressive.

Sat, 01/04/2014 - 15:09 | Link to Comment skifff
skifff's picture

Hmmm... Finns won???

Isn't Red Army achived every objective that was set?

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!