Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Tom]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 05:34:05AM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but even if you could convince
> me, it's also then brought us full-circle: nukes. So we haven't really
> gained much, by that measure.

But then, try to live the life of some farmer in 730 a.d. or of a slave
in 2.500 b.c. egypt, or that of a miner in 4.000 b.c. china.

In fact, we're living in the best possible times humans have ever had.
Surely there are lots of things which could be better, don't get me
wrong. But one thing is for sure: past times, all of them, were worse
than today for most people on earth.

> And yet, you're also talking to a guy that enjoys jumping out of
> airplanes, and I can tell you that the edge of extinction is a rather
> lovely 45 seconds.

LOL :)



Tom

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:06:17PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> Greed is a fundamental problem of Capitalism. It is also a fundamental
>> problem of Socialism. The Soviet chiefs in the Politburo weren't
>> standing
>> in the bread lines with everyone else.
>
> On the other hand, greed is the primary driver which led us humans where
> we are today. Without it, we'd surely still be hunter-gatherer's living
> every day on the edge of extinction.
>
> So, fighting greed might not work.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but even if you could convince
me, it's also then brought us full-circle: nukes. So we haven't really
gained much, by that measure.

And yet, you're also talking to a guy that enjoys jumping out of
airplanes, and I can tell you that the edge of extinction is a rather
lovely 45 seconds.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Mirimir]

On 09/22/2016 07:51 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>>
>> Right. US military have trained heavily for this scenario, however.
> 
> So? That can actually play to your advantage. With heavy training, comes
> assumptions of what to expect, and an ingrained game-plan. If you know
> what they expect, you simply do something else, and cause confusion.
> 
>>
>> Well, too weak or not, far too few of them want freedom badly enough.
> 
> Yeah, the conditions for real insurrection are rare, and tends to involve
> a great deal of suffering. As a tyrannt, if you can keep the population
> fat, and entertained, you'll be alright.

That's the US overall, for sure ;)

>> That does seem to be a favorite tactic. But even if you take down the
>> national government, it's police forces and National Guard units that
>> would become feudal overlords. So armed insurrection seems pointless.
> 
> Nah, you're looking at it in a vacuum. If the conditions are right to get
> a large enough force together to do something like that, there is enough
> social support to get a majority on board.
> 
> Read, or review, Che Guevara's work "Guerrilla Warfare" .. he makes a
> pretty compelling case for the types of conditions that need to be met in
> order to have an effective insurrection.

I'd rather read SF ;) But even from the author and title, I'm about 90%
sure that most of the US doesn't have such conditions.

>>> If this is true, its a serious indication that the United States
>>> government is greatly weakening. Considering its importance to the west,
>>> generally, its good news all around.
>>
>> Wishful thinking.
> 
> OK, so you made me go digging this up.
> https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/dhs-report-latest-warn-fallout-bundy-ranch-standoff
> 
> Federal agents has firearms pointed at them, and stood down. DHS
> subsequently predicted a rise in anti-government and anti-police activity
> as a result. They were right about that, it would seem.

Yeah, the anti-government militias. I doubt that they're organized well
enough to accomplish much. DHS backed down to avoid bad PR is all.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

>
> Right. US military have trained heavily for this scenario, however.

So? That can actually play to your advantage. With heavy training, comes
assumptions of what to expect, and an ingrained game-plan. If you know
what they expect, you simply do something else, and cause confusion.

>
> Well, too weak or not, far too few of them want freedom badly enough.

Yeah, the conditions for real insurrection are rare, and tends to involve
a great deal of suffering. As a tyrannt, if you can keep the population
fat, and entertained, you'll be alright.

>
> That does seem to be a favorite tactic. But even if you take down the
> national government, it's police forces and National Guard units that
> would become feudal overlords. So armed insurrection seems pointless.

Nah, you're looking at it in a vacuum. If the conditions are right to get
a large enough force together to do something like that, there is enough
social support to get a majority on board.

Read, or review, Che Guevara's work "Guerrilla Warfare" .. he makes a
pretty compelling case for the types of conditions that need to be met in
order to have an effective insurrection.

>> If this is true, its a serious indication that the United States
>> government is greatly weakening. Considering its importance to the west,
>> generally, its good news all around.
>
> Wishful thinking.

OK, so you made me go digging this up.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2014/dhs-report-latest-warn-fallout-bundy-ranch-standoff

Federal agents has firearms pointed at them, and stood down. DHS
subsequently predicted a rise in anti-government and anti-police activity
as a result. They were right about that, it would seem.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:12:11AM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> They were bloody well fed anti tank and anti aircraft rpgs and the like
> by the USA - that's how they took down the USSR occupation.
>
>
>> Then took their AK47's and repelled NATO.
>
> Your simplification may be useful to inspire, but more research by the
> wanna be AK47 wielder is most definitely required!

You really might want to look into this yourself.

Western military analysts tend to see the introduction of the Stinger
missles as the "turning point" in the war.

Russian analysts see the decision much differently. Gorbachev had ordered
the scale-down, and withdrawal a full year before the Afghans fired their
first Stinger.

And of course, no one was feeding them artillery during the invasion by NATO.

But, in a way, you're right. It wasn't REALLY the rifle's that let them
win. It was the mountains.

Nevertheless, given the proper conditions and terrain it is not difficult
to mitigate tanks and aircraft. It is not difficult to arrange a situation
where an army needs to walk in, on foot.

And once you get them to that point, it's all about the rifles.

I don't know exactly what the terrain is like in some of the U.S. mountain
areas, but I'm sure there are suitable areas. But it doesn't even matter.

If you have the bodies? Grab rifles, walk into New York and D.C., and
squat them. Tanks and aircraft are useless. They aren't going to use
artillery on Manhattan or D.C. Three thousand or so "tourists" show up
over the course of 6-8 months in each city. There are abandoned subway
tunnels in NY might get overlooked. You'd need access to some hardware to
break in, but if you can manage something like this, that is trivial.
There may be something similar in DC.

The problem isn't that artillery and aircraft are too difficult to avoid,
and mitigate. Its that the people are too weak. Big difference.

And in any civil war scenario, its quite likely you'll gain anti-aircraft
missles, artillery, etc, very early. It is always likely that you'll
inspire at least a partial military coup.

> And TAKE NOTICE all WANNA BE INSURRECTIONISTS - our TLA 'friends' will
> always try to infiltrate, demonstrate and thereafter express authority,
> and finally cause your insurrection to launch waay too early, well
> before you have any chance of succeeding.

I don't know the whole story, but I read awhile back about some situation
or another in the States where militias had a stand off with the Federal
government, and the government stood down?

If this is true, its a serious indication that the United States
government is greatly weakening. Considering its importance to the west,
generally, its good news all around.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[xorcist]

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:30:55PM -0700, Razer wrote:
>
> You cannot eliminate human nature.
>
> Greed and lust for power are tendencies of human nature.
>
> But perhaps it is possible to commoditize politics, rather than have
> politics be a tool for the wealthy and powerful?
>
> (How? Good question - time to hack concepts.)
>

I agree completely, Zen.

Greed is a fundamental problem of Capitalism. It is also a fundamental
problem of Socialism. The Soviet chiefs in the Politburo weren't standing
in the bread lines with everyone else.

Any reasonable political theory must account for this, and provide some
strategy to mitigate it.

How, of course, is the question. I suspect Syndicalism would work, and if
combined with a new theory of value might work quite well. Bootstrapping
it is the problem.

Power, is a whole other animal. I'm not sure anyone has really figured
that one out.

If the society has "money" .. and if "money" is, in some sense, a
mechanism for motivating and organizing labor, then quite literally, the
wealthy have more power, right down to the sense that the term is used in
physics, that of the rate of doing work.

I suspect that there is no way to create a truly egalitarian society in
the presence of money. Those that have it, will have an advantage in
negotiating with those that don't. You've created a power dynamic as soon
as you print the stuff.

Now, on the other hand, if basic goods and services were free, if you were
assured a basic standard of living, and food to eat, perhaps in a communal
house or public studio apartments, so that one did not HAVE to work for
money, but would only want to work in order to get access to better goods,
services, bigger apartment, etc, that might be enough to take the edge of
the implied power dynamics.

But it still doesn't stop the fact that a wealthy person can afford to pay
bunches of people to help get him political power, and that political
power allows him to become wealthier; and then the deafening feedback
begins.

The solution is to create a structure that doesn't utilize money, at least
not in the way we know the concept.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Xer0Dynamite]

>> Show me the Law(s) that makes it so.
>
> Guns make it so. Law enforcement owns about 99.9% of all the military
> style weaponry.
>[...]
> We tried voting.
> We tried protesting.

1) The protesting you've tried hasn't utilized the strategy of law,
only appeals to emotions.
2) The government still relies on money from its citizens, if people
don't give it money it won't be able to pay its military to shoot its
own citizens, or buy the bullets in which to shoot
them.
3) There is the DSM from psychiatry in which you can CLINICALLY
diagnose America with several pathologies.  This is enough to win a
court case about giving money to the federal government.

Anyway, you apparently still haven't thought about what I linked to
you.  It gets very tiring re-explaining myself (I've been assaulted
four times already by the Establishment and abandoned those who are
perfectly content with their coffee-shop lives).

\0x


>
> This is a reasonable time to start with the armed insurrection stuff.
> Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our
> volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft
> batteries, maybe a submarine or two?
>
> Oh, you can't afford that?

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Razer]

On 09/22/2016 01:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:30:55PM -0700, Razer wrote:
>> On 09/21/2016 08:15 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
>>> Since Greed is about power, a political revolution has little if
>> anything to do with ideology,
>>
>> There's an ideological difference between communism and capitalism.
>>
>> Ideally communism should mean the elimination of greed as a driving
>> force in a society. Including greed for power.
> 
> You cannot eliminate human nature.

But it's absolutely VOLUNTARILY modifiable to suit.

You believe in predestination too?

> 
> Greed and lust for power are tendencies of human nature.

To what degree? Are you entirely obsessive compulsive about it or is it
less pronounced? (Do you use your superpowers for good or evil as
measured by the rest of the tribe? And does it 'scale' from the tribe to
the rest of the larger community, and that larger community..).

There ARE societies on the Earth today that DO NOT put the individual
first. Ofc NOT "Western Industrial Societies".

A while back, maybe 5 or ten years ago, I read a story about an
anthropologist working in an African village and he went and bought some
candy for the kids...

He, like a hyper-competitive westerner might do, made them race to a
tree for it. When the winner grabbed the boo-tay the child started
handing it out to the other kids.

When the anthropologist asked why he didn't keep it all the child had a
very simple reply.

"But how could I be happy if all my friends are sad?"



I don't think you're aware of how truly fucked up beyond all recognition
(spelled out intentionally) industrial societies are.

But you WOULD BE if bombs to get the oil and other resources to make the
computer you and I use were falling on YOUR CHILD'S head.


Dimitry Orlov's blogger friend responds to "How (not) to Organize a
Community" with a post called "But what IS community".

This is Orlov's Forward:

"This is another guest post from Yevgeny, which he wrote in response to
my article How (not) to Organize a Community. He poses what, to a
Russian, seems an obvious question: “How (not) to organize a WHAT?” You
see, upon close examination the English word “community” turns out to be
all but meaningless..."

http://cluborlov.blogspot.se/2010/11/but-what-is-community.html

In the original piece he spells out in great detail how the outcasts of
a society build a stronger, more resilient one.

They're also likely to be marauders. That's the end result of
cooperative societies ejecting the non-cooperative members.

They band together like the psychopaths they are, and exact vengeance on
the ejecting community.

Mirmir and I had an interesting off-list chat about a group like that in
US counterculture. The "STP Family" and concurrent "'A' Camp", the Bane
of Rainbow Gatherings.


In the larger context there are people making BILLIONS of dollars from
the breakdown of cohesion, the social atomization, of humanity.

They are my enemy.

Rr

> 
> But perhaps it is possible to commoditize politics, rather than have
> politics be a tool for the wealthy and powerful?
> 
> (How? Good question - time to hack concepts.)
> 

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:43:41AM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:34:23 -0700
> Razer  quoted:
> > So… if the 2nd Amendment's "right to revolution" implication is real,
> > both practically and legally, it must also include a right to possess
> > tanks, jets, rocket launchers, etc.
>   
>   Yes. And not because of some constitutional statist bullshit,
>   but as a matter of natural rights.

The only fundamental estoppel to this, is community support.

If you are able to couch your position in a way which shall appeal to
the mums and dads - the middle class (those who might actually be able
to afford and RPG, and who might be interested in a system that benefits
them more than the 0.001%, -and- you go the distance in careful,
conscientious and strategic recruitment,

then and only then might you seriously change the political landscape.


Perhaps consider not bashing the bible bashers, not emotionally berating
the emotionally beratable, and holding to some foundations which are
agreeable to the majority.


If you don't have majority agreement, at least after an hour or six of
discussion, then your platform will not be supported by the middle class
and the middle class will gladly support their sons and daughters in
handling you at the expense of their tax paid dollars and the govt.


> > Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our
> > volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft
> > batteries, maybe a submarine or two?
> > 
> > Oh, you can't afford that?
> 
> 
>   Actually, who says that you can't make D-I-Y missiles, chemical
>   weapons and the like? You of course can, and so the rest of the
>   article is bullshit.

If you shall achieve a genuine change, you shall do it with support from
a not insignificant number of other humans with you.

The lone "I did it my way" ranger will not succeed in fundamentally
changing society.

Gandhi walked a thousand miles on foot and talked with thousands of
individuals, to build support for his simple, easy to digest principle
"the British shall go".


>   Now, the people who say that you can't are people who want you
>   to be afraid of the kochs, and want you to believe that the
>   government is bad, but the koch are worse, so you should thank
>   the government from protecting you from the kochs after all.

May be so. But we ought focus on possible pathways to end goals.

I assume an end goal being intended when words of possibility are
spoken.

Which also makes it not so difficult to identify those who are
defensively attached to the system as it is today, of course.


>   And funnily enough these people who claim to be against the
>   koch are actually the kochs' best friends because the kochs
>   couldn't do what they do if the government didn't back them.

Generally, I'd also say this is true.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:15:53PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
> Which is why we need more revolutions, beginning with establishing
> alternative ways of life that reduce or eliminate the role of today's
> rulers and the passionately held, completely false Truths they dictate
> to our own communities.  Big job?  The biggest.  If not for the
> pending collapse of the global material economy, I would call it an
> impossible job - vs. one of the most important jobs anyone could be
> working on today.

New  Hampshire

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:12:11AM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> AK47's are useless?
> 
> The Afghani's repelled the Soviets with manual-action rifles from WWI
> and WWIi.

They were bloody well fed anti tank and anti aircraft rpgs and the like
by the USA - that's how they took down the USSR occupation.


> Then took their AK47's and repelled NATO.

Your simplification may be useful to inspire, but more research by the
wanna be AK47 wielder is most definitely required!


> And the Taliban is still there.
>
> So I think they'd take exception with this.
> 
> But there are good points to it. The ability for insurrection is largely
> overstated.

I agree.

> But nothing is impossible if you're willing to die.

The main problem is, that folks couch or frame the discussion from the
dominant Western mindset - the individual or small group (think WACO)
that desperately and futilely tries to hold out against the whole
system.

That lacks intelligence.

That lacks foresight.

That lacks strategic planning, and sensible targets for "those on my
side willing to wield an AK47" prior to actually launching your
insurrection.


And TAKE NOTICE all WANNA BE INSURRECTIONISTS - our TLA 'friends' will
always try to infiltrate, demonstrate and thereafter express authority,
and finally cause your insurrection to launch waay too early, well
before you have any chance of succeeding.


  THINK !!!

  Handle (banish!) from your core, those who evidently compromise
  your intentions.




And of course, to maximise recruitment (of counter insurrectionists),
speak loudly and brashly in the most public way you can, with no thought
for subtlety and strategy.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:50:09PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 06:32 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> 
> > The people in those Crown Colonies that became United States started
> > refusing to pay taxes and surcharges, ignoring the orders of Crown
> > authorities, and constructing their own systems of commerce and
> > governance long before that "shot heard 'round the world."  The
> > Revolutionary War was more a response to a campaign by the Crown to
> > take the Colonies back over, than a struggle to kick established
> > rulers out.  That is why the Revolutionary War had the necessary
> > organization and mass public support to succeed.
> 
> 
> There was no American Revolution. Revolutions are based on ideology.
> 
> Greed IS NOT an ideology.

Ack.

> ("...started refusing to pay taxes and surcharges, ignoring the orders
> of Crown authorities, and constructing their own systems of commerce..."
> That favored ***THEIR*** WHITE RICH MALE interests.)

So pick a set of rules / proposed mass action, that will appeal to the
target audience. Back then it was "rich" (trading/ land owning) white
males, now it's what? Perhaps middle class mom and dad dual income
family (making about the same as a single working "white male" back in
the '60s - that's the comparison in Australia anyway) ?

Pick a motivation (hip pocket/ money), map out a set of rhetoric/
propaganda that will have best chance of appealing to your target
"activists", build your core (this may be the hardest part) then it
should grow naturally, since you pitched the right audience with the
right message.

Don't bemoan "the racist elitist" past - they were successful in
opposing the English Crown's attempt to bring them back under control -
just learn from what worked already.

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 09/21/2016 10:50 PM, Razer wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 06:32 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

>> rulers out.  That is why the Revolutionary War had the necessary 
>> organization and mass public support to succeed.
> 
> 
> There was no American Revolution. Revolutions are based on
> ideology.
> 
> Greed IS NOT an ideology.

In my view, Religion is about ideology and Politics is about power.
Since Greed is about power, a political revolution has little if
anything to do with ideology, except in that ideological propaganda
(emotionally charged fact-free bullshit) is always employed to
persuade people to support and participate in revolutions - or to
violently oppose them, as the propagandists' employers may direct.

> ("...started refusing to pay taxes and surcharges, ignoring the
> orders of Crown authorities, and constructing their own systems of
> commerce..." That favored ***THEIR*** WHITE RICH MALE interests.)

Well duh.  Before the American Revolution, holders of Crown land
grants were the most wealthy and powerful people in the Colonies.
After the American Revolution, former holders of Crown land grants
were the most wealthy and powerful people in the States.  The U.S.
Constitution was written for the purpose of creating a Federal
authority capable of stomping down popular uprisings against abuses of
power by these same de facto rulers.

American racism was invented by the same fine folks, as a response to
slave uprisings earlier in Colonial history:  By granting White
"indentured" slaves special privileges, they successfully divided the
conquered.  That process has continued uninterrupted, with adaptations
to accommodate changing conditions, until the present day: In Obama's
Amerika, any black person with a Master's Degree or above is as good
as any white person - all others pay in blood.

Which is why we need more revolutions, beginning with establishing
alternative ways of life that reduce or eliminate the role of today's
rulers and the passionately held, completely false Truths they dictate
to our own communities.  Big job?  The biggest.  If not for the
pending collapse of the global material economy, I would call it an
impossible job - vs. one of the most important jobs anyone could be
working on today.




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX40zpAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqDxAH/0ifQv7+R+SECOqmtuZQzEUD
JjokbXc47u7xPdWVjwmFQNkq63LKbGd08SmKaAeS7CKix4tmAkcjZpHLbMsbR6W5
7ksZbPJrA8AgXysWNcCbbys6ayuo0Rn482F19n1f9mjIj8xJJQNzEhF97/AQJ2LK
MeOdH4dD9pxw/OxhZVl8pU4wmNO7nRFoia1uondkoz8k9QPN4fHVre24W05WAAFj
ljZd6lqLit8pmdIqzPHfcijd99LErntw9MqmN/6jOg8y2wGIm/QX7SqRMheM02kq
gIaYFhVxzPQqRXlC/NwLY37iIWm4A6OKiBWUtLjW2risvhi8lgJBwp5TXXbyVhs=
=N+8q
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 09/21/2016 08:34 PM, Razer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/21/2016 12:03 PM, Xer0Dynamite wrote:
>> Show me the Law(s) that makes it so.
>> 
>> \0x
> 
> Guns make it so. Law enforcement owns about 99.9% of all the
> military style weaponry.

Collusion between Legislators, Judges, Prosecutors and other attorneys
make it so.  Software code is interpreted by machines without
conflicts of interest or hands out for bribes.  Legal code is
interpreted by semi-humans who chose "power over others" as their
career path and invested a lot of energy and money in gaining that power
.

> We managed to preserve our right to keep military grade rifles and 
> machine guns, so we all muster down on the Town Common with our
> guns.
> 
> We tried voting.
> 
> We tried protesting.
> 
> This is a reasonable time to start with the armed insurrection
> stuff.

A reasonable time to demonstrate the painful ignorance and delusional
beliefs our rulers have given us, to assure that we stay ruled.  Armed
insurrection, before the revolution process has even started, is a
gesture of suicide/surrender we have been taught to perform.  Think of
it as the ultimate act of obedience to established authority.

A revolution is won or lost before the first publicly acknowledged
shot is fired.  The shooting war is the last phase, its purpose to pry
the fingers of a stubborn ruling class off the levers of power /after/
their rule has already been rendered obsolete and irrelevant by
changes in the actual economic and social behavior of their subjects.
 Otherwise it's a coup, not a revolution.  A revolution is "the world
turned upside down."  A coup just changes out the old bastards for a
new set of bastards, usually worse ones.

The people in those Crown Colonies that became United States started
refusing to pay taxes and surcharges, ignoring the orders of Crown
authorities, and constructing their own systems of commerce and
governance long before that "shot heard 'round the world."  The
Revolutionary War was more a response to a campaign by the Crown to
take the Colonies back over, than a struggle to kick established
rulers out.  That is why the Revolutionary War had the necessary
organization and mass public support to succeed.

I found the bits of this essay addressing the Revolutionary War very
interesting, largely because I had not previously seen anything
similar in print anywhere:

http://www.fragmentsweb.org/fourtx/dishist.pdf

:o)





-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX4zSVAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqN6IH/RifFG7NWYgFXD0oe9Yf+r2+
/9bmd4gF3o3avZFgraSdGBhBgQO9Ogc15nuysUdJP6qmxSZw9Y195sP0xA/aH9ms
FbnrFcYcHZnHNJqfKrmyUIrkYzCNkppsOmlvDtqTBzabqwJRyLxWvlUL79LJlVeX
CkMomQvJajsyorbUneJ1N32mY8zOeyNoEFLQsaLgPBb7r64Iyf0hOvPuj1A6fhz+
vm4kyqnNEXG0lkQedPA/WbNcOr8pZQQ7VlAfVUu82E3eAc2EIs1WWV9o9kBqFcEs
hIRIiTr3+3905AI4sZQl4ncNweSreM375zigehZ6WVxzfxqIv2FGHfROGA05AiQ=
=hkPc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: "The Tree of Liberty will get its manure..." [Was Re:]

[Razer]

On 09/21/2016 12:03 PM, Xer0Dynamite wrote:
> Show me the Law(s) that makes it so.
> 
> \0x

Guns make it so. Law enforcement owns about 99.9% of all the military
style weaponry.

Have you ever seen this bit @Popehat:

In 1776, when the height of military technology was a musket and a
cannon, both of which you could make by melting down church bells, there
might have been something to it. When the contest was little more than
numbers of guns you could drag through the woods, and how to play the
weather, the government probably did need to worry a bit about
insurrection – and that might have kept them a bit more honest.

However, the first time someone tried that kind of thing, it didn't work
out so well. In fact, Shays' Rebellion just led to Constitutional tweaks
to make the federal government that much stronger. The Civil War led to
even more, with harsher consequences.

If 13 states, with the assistance of at least one superpower, didn't
manage to get their way through armed insurrection, what the hell makes
anyone think that armed insurgency is going to preserve our right to …
whatever … not have affordable health care, or to coffee cups that say
"Happy Birthday Jesus" on them?

Ok, fine… lets come up with a cause worth fighting for.

Lets say that Obama refuses to step down in 2016, and he not only
declares himself dictator-for-life, but he also starts dressing like
Ghadaffi, decrees that the national religion shall be Islam, the
national language will be Klingon, there will be an efficient rail
network in the United States, the writ of Prima Noctae is now in effect,
and there shall be martial law to enforce all of the above, as well as
any other laws that the President invents, on a daily basis.

We managed to preserve our right to keep military grade rifles and
machine guns, so we all muster down on the Town Common with our guns.

We tried voting.

We tried protesting.

This is a reasonable time to start with the armed insurrection stuff.

So, you, me, all our neighbors, hell our entire city builds a perimeter
around it. We fill sandbags, we all have ammunition, we all have food,
water, supplies, and most importantly, we are all unified and in
complete solidarity.

And we stand there, resisting whatever it is the government was going to
do to us.

And then they fly over with one jet, dropping one FAE bomb, and roll in
with three tanks, and in about 12 hours, our "resistance" is reduced to
a few smoking holes.

The Tree of Liberty will get its manure all right, but it will be the
manure that you shat out as you ran for cover, as long range artillery
rains down on our town, as we get carpet bombed from 35,000 feet, and as
the sky goes black with drones and cruise missiles.

We're screwed.

So… if the 2nd Amendment's "right to revolution" implication is real,
both practically and legally, it must also include a right to possess
tanks, jets, rocket launchers, etc.

Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our
volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft
batteries, maybe a submarine or two?

Oh, you can't afford that?

That's ok, we have some patriotic citizens who can.

Who?

The same billionaires who already own the government, that's who.

So what do they want to "resist?"

I could only see them wanting to resist checks on their own power.

So, if the Second Amendment implies a right to resist the government,
then that would mean that we need our billionaire friends to start
stockpiling these weapons now. We need a Koch brothers airfield with a
few fighters and bombers, and Adelson should have a fleet of tanks
somewhere, and I guess that George Soros would bring his collection of
nuke-armed submarines up to date, right?

So lets drop the crazy scenario of Obama-cum-Ghadaffi, and just think
about something we were really likely to see upset us. Do you think for
a moment that you, living in some apartment in Salt Lake City, or a
house in Wyoming, or a condo in Boca Raton, would be ready to go to war
with the Federal Government over the same shit that would get the Koch
Brothers to fuel up their private stock of A10 Warthogs? Really?

Because you know what the billionaires want the government to stop doing?

They want it to get out of the way of their becoming trillionaires.

If you think that the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court said
in Heller, and you believe that is a good thing, because it gives you
the ability to resist the government, you might want to play out the
long game in your head.

The long game here is this interpretation leads to private armies,
raised by limitless wealth, all of which looks at our quaint little
republican form of government as nothing more than a paper justification
to have a flag waving over a few national parks."


Yes... There's more:
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/you-are-not-going-to-resist-the-government-with-your-guns/


> 
> On 9/21/16, Razer  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/21/2016 11:20