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.

Comment viewing options

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

Ignatius's picture

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

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. 

Anusocracy's picture


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

Insanity at its finest.

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.

runningman18's picture

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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?

Fukushima Sam's picture

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

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.

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.

dr kill's picture

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

BigJim's picture

I fear for the stability of your lower limbs

WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan


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.”

RafterManFMJ's picture

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

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

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.

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)!

WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan


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.

jonjon831983's picture

"Document: Israeli Mossad spy agency trained young Mandela"


"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?



Andre's picture

Many speak of Ghandi. Few remember Nehru.

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.

Calmyourself's picture

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


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

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!



WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan


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?

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.

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.

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

Calmyourself's picture

Quick tell George Washington and the boys..

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.

skifff's picture

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

WarriorClass's picture

Becoming the New Barbarians

by Jack Donavan


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.

stormsailor's picture

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

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. 

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.  

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.

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. 

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.



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.

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!;-)

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.