Disguise Techniques

[Download a PDF of this article]

Many works of English literature deal with the theme of personal identity. Shakespearean characters (particularly Viola from Twelfth Night) are known to play with our preconceived notions of who we think we are. Needless to say, fretting about whether or not you are part of “infinite consciousness,” or are otherwise “awakened” is really diversionary; I suggest that it is much more beneficial to quit worrying about such esoteric matters and simply enjoy impersonating archetypes with whatever creative genius you happen to naturally possess.



Disguise is not primarily physical, but psychological. The author stresses the importance of “not-being,” that is, the feeling of not wanting to be noticed, much like not wanting to be called on in school or attempting to avoid human contact on a bus. By additionally assuming the characteristics of certain stereotypes, you can blend seamlessly into an environment than you would otherwise be able to naturally (such as by appearing to be a college student, waiter, or mailman/deliveryman); of course, the yin to this yang is that you can also “hide in plain sight” by acting like a highly visible archetype (i.e. priest, prostitute, police officer, etc). The key to a truly good impersonation is to choose a stereotype that is very, very different from how you naturally behave.

Increasing observational skills is an essential preparatory task for training in the art of disguise. Jotting down notes about the appearance of people in photographs can help illuminate you in terms of what your natural prejudices are, with the preferable goal of helping you develop an objective perspective. Interestingly, studying television shows and movies in a focused manner can demonstrate to you why your impressions of certain characters are what they happen to be due to a combination of personal appearance and carefully crafted behavior. These practice sessions can be upgraded towards observing your own behavior by recording yourself on video and then studying your own behavior and appearance.

Simple disguises are wonderful for being able to be easily throw away as outfit components as well as also being able to quickly change into other ones. Certain aspects of the environment, such as your car or office, can also be pressed into service in terms of deceiving your targets. Awareness of how you act in given contexts, coupled with your conscious manipulation of it, can greatly aid you in your efforts. Authentic previous experience with a certain social group is essential to infiltrating it. Letting others make assumptions based on what you omit is an immensely powerful technique; what you can’t let be assumed by your targets, you should be able to weasel your way through without appearing to do so. Permanent disguises require many identification papers that have to be painstakingly acquired.

Physical disguises should be as generic and as easy to use as possible. Cosmetics, hair styles, and artificial age lines should not be completely ignored when assembling the actual outfit. Removing unsightly chest hair and/or adding a wig should not be overlooked. Brushing on naturally appearing bruises, tattoos, or scars are some choices available to you. Present also is the option to suntan.

Edmond MacInaugh’s Disguise Techniques: Fool All of the People Some of the Time is a must read since it presents what can be done for your own amusement, or, for some reason, deception is unavoidably necessary. Political dissidents who are prone to commit civil disobedience blatantly might very well become much more discreet when they realize that when the State puts them on their databases as troublemakers of some sort, what would then be needed to avoid detection could be considered by them to not be worth the effort in the first place. Alternatively, those who understand the field of military science can appreciate the utility of being able to blend in seamlessly within the population.

Rights, Ethics, and Property

I propose that voluntarists, ancaps, philosophers, and other liberty-minded individuals stop using the words “rights” and “property” entirely. These words are not inherently bad, but due to the accumulated baggage they’ve been saddled with and due to the fact that we now have more parsimonious alternatives, we can express our ideas with greater clarity by avoiding them.

Consider the difference between rights and the NAP. The NAP is an expression of proscribed behaviors (the initiation of force). From this proscription one can derive rights such as a the right to life, the right to bodily integrity, the right of free association, etc. There are two problems with talking about rights, however. The first is that due to frequent misinterpretation it’s essential to add a caveat to any definition of rights that specifies them to be negative instead of positive. Otherwise some people will start from the right to life as a premise, conclude that that everyone has a right to that which is necessary for life and eventually posit that all people are owed universal free internet access and health care. The other problem is that a specific enumeration of rights is wholly unnecessary. The single proscription, “do not initiate force”, covers everything that needs to be said about any right derived from the NAP. Occam’s razor suggests that we should choose the more parsimonious formulation and in practice this helps us communicate by avoiding the land mines of loaded terms with their associated emotional baggage and prior (mis)conceptions.

In order to entirely replace with rights with a succinct list of proscribed behaviors we need to address property, as the NAP alone is not sufficient. The definition of property is a tar pit that should be avoided at all costs, since arguments when fall into this area rarely achieve resolution. There’s just so much historical propaganda surrounding this term that I consider it to be a waste of time to even define, if it’s possible to avoid doing so.

The best I’ve been able to come up with so far is the following: It’s wrong to obtain resources via coercion or subterfuge. We already know that the direct application of violence to obtain resources is wrong based on the NAP. This statement adds the threat of violence and fraud to the list of proscriptions to, as far as I can tell, achieve a complete ethical description of property rights without ever needing to define property or refer to the concept of rights. The basic sanity check on this formulation is to see what it allows. If using or threatening violence, and fraud is forbidden what means of obtaining resources are allowed? Homesteading and voluntary exchange violate none of those proscriptions and they are what libertarian theories of property rights typically permit.

To go further towards the goal of increased clarity we need a succinct formulation of the NAP that’s short enough to explain to other people without exceeding their attention span. To that end I propose, “The only legitimate use of violence is for unavoidable self defense.” This is the most succinct, least subject to misinterpretation and hijacking formulation I can come up with. Combine this with the prior statement and we could say the following:

“Rational morality means: the only legitimate use of violence is for unavoidable self defense, and it’s wrong to obtain resources via coercion or subterfuge.”

My hope is this statement, or an improved version of it, can serve to help people avoid stumbling blocks in conversations by focusing on a short list of proscribed behaviors (ethics) instead of a long lists of enumerated rights and semantic tar pits. If anyone has suggestions, comments, improvements or can identify errors or omissions please let me know.

Unearned Respect – The Last Bastille Podcast #65

Audio version of my article on unearned respect. This episode is available as a free downloadable podcast.


Episode Description

A common misconception that ingratiates itself into the mainstream American psyche is an unmitigated reverence for authority. Something about certain kinds of titled occupations somehow convinces people that it is the office, the badge, or the uniform that must be “honored.” Such ubiquitous mind control must be deprogrammed from people’s heads if Liberty is to ever take root in America again.

Featured music is AshleyAlyse’s “A Puzzling Predicament,” and Bosa’s “King’s Quest,” both of them available pursuant to CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 Unported.

Give War a Chance

Humour is an essential attribute with which to deal with the atrocities. Coping with systematic abuse by the Establishment is indispensable towards staying alive. Taking a break from the harsh realities of our overall situation is necessary in order to regain a proper perspective.



Probably the historical chain of events that became known as the fall of Communism was heralded as the best proof for libertarians that the State can actually fall absent a revolution. The author covers Berlin in November of 1989, Nicaragua in February of 1990, and the Ukraine in September of 1991 where the utter failure of Communism was laid bare for all the world to see. Unfortunately, these events did not stop the central bankers who run the socialistic Federal Reserve Bank or their Wall Street cronies who funded the Bolshevik Revolution that started Communism in the first place; nevertheless, it was good to for O’Rourke to ridicule those statists for their fallacious notions of superiority.

The fall of the Berlin Wall also demonstrates how the free market can defeat the State. As O’Rourke details about how the “West” won the Cold War:


“And the best thing about our victory is the way we did it – not just with ICBMs and Green Berets and aid to the contras. Those things were important, but in the end we beat them with Levi 501 jeans. Seventy-two years of communist indoctrination and propaganda was drowned out by a three-ounce Sony Walkman. A huge totalitarian system with all its tanks and guns, gulag camps and secret police has been brought to its knees because nobody wants to wear Bulgarian shoes. They may have had the soldiers and the warheads and the fine-sounding ideology that suckered the college students and nitwit Third Worlders, but we had all the fun. Now they’re lunch, and we’re number one on the planet.”


Change around a few of the terms a little bit, and it would accurately describe our current situation under the Anglo-American Empire (for your information, those who have descended from the six Celtic nations historically have had a cultural allergic reaction to tyranny, especially from those particular invading Germanic nations who eventually conquered the British Isles; anyone claiming that the New World Order is perpetuated solely by imperialistic “white men” should really study the 1919 – 1921 Irish War for Independence before continuing to spout foolishly inaccurate lies).

I particularly enjoyed O’Rourke’s piece on “An Argument in Favor of Automobiles Vs. Pedestrians.” How could someone not with imagery like this:


“Pedestrians are easily damaged. Try this test: Hit a pedestrian with a car. Now have the pedestrian hit the car back. Then roll a pedestrian and a car through four inches of slush and road salt at sixty miles an hour. Take a coin-operated spray gun and hose off their undersides. Which is in better shape? Also, most automobiles have 5 MPH bumpers. But a pedestrian cannot be run into a wall at even 3 MPH (approximately walking speed) without getting a bloody nose. And pedestrians are notoriously expensive to repair.”


I wonder how, instead of a pedestrian, a government agent would fair against a car? If police officers are truly above us all (since their shiny tin badges grant them superpowers), then they shouldn’t care too much about “officer safety,” should they?

O’Rourke’s ridicule of Jimmy Carter’s autobiography Everything to Gain was absolutely fantastic with its suggestions of various party games that can be played with it, such as D-U-M Dumb, Finish That Thought, Riposte, and You Don’t Say. Either it’s the bad grammar or the collectivist pitch phrases that Carter is spewing, but O’Rourke serves up a cocktail of deprecating humour to combat it. Just goes to show you the kinds of people who are attracted to that monopoly of coercive violence known as the State.

Coverage of the 1991 Persian Gulf War provided some unexpected comedy, such as the small sign on a building within the King Fahd Air Base west of Dhahran that said, “Give War a Chance.” O’Rourke remarks about the Saudi Arabian government’s tourist picture book, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that “Here is a glowing official description of a nations capital, and the first thing that the first sentence mentions is highway overpasses.” Our intrepid satirist also comments about his arrival in Kuwait City during the war:


“In place of the Fourth-Largest Army in the World we saw cruising teens. This was the Kuwaiti Resistance. One group of five pulled up in a Buick Park Avenue, happily brandishing AK-47’s out the windows of dad’s car. They were dressed just like teenagers would if the cool kids at the high school got to form their own partisan army – one guy favored the Rambo look, another was dressed like Little Steven, two others were got up in Mutant Ninja Turtle garb and one fellow, who wasn’t quite with the program, seemed to have stepped out of a J. Crew catalogue…[s]mall arms fire could be heard coming from various places in the lightless city. It was a teenage dream come true: Bad guys invade your neighborhood and you and your best friends get to stay out late, kill them, skip school and impress girls. The Kuwaiti Resistance fighters welcomed us effusively. But when teenage dreams start coming true, sensible adults get out of town.”


In many ways, that could very well describe American guerrilla fighters in the not-too-distant future.

P.J. O’Rourke’s Give War a Chance: Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind’s Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice, and Alcohol-Free Beer is an uplifting read for any political dissident who seriously needs a good laugh while facing adversity. It really shows that what we’re going through is arguably not that all different from what other peoples have throughout history. That being said, I do not imply that passive acceptance is desirable; far from it.


Religions provide a prepackaged perspective with which to view the world. Their conception on what they think is human nature is integral to the behavior of its adherents. While this may provide a kind of intellectual and emotional security for some people, there will always be individuals who just simply disagree with the theological dogma that’s been proselytized to them by the clergy.



People should have the liberty to be potentially foolish, for without that, there can be no incentives from which to learn and to grow. If a bunch of folks choose to go dance around a tree stump in the woods, what exactly is the problem with that? I thought a free society was supposed to possess a laissez-faire attitude; absent a demonstration of harm against actual victims, it seems to me that the intrinsic lack of coercion (which governments are so infamous for) really negates any sort of secular moral indignation.

Then again, is the problem the institutionalization of organized religion, or the theology itself? I’ve posited before my firm opposition to formal religions as such, since they are typically little more than mind control cults headed by a vampiric clergy; however, it is not my place to dictate, harass, or otherwise bully other individuals regarding their own very personal beliefs concerning the metaphysical phenomenon that may or may not be impacting this realm of reality. Since we know so little of how quantum physics, multiverses, and quarks actually function, I think it is the height of arrogance to assert that other phenomenon do not exist given our ignorance; usually whatever is eventually empirically revealed is way more wild than anyone even thought (just consider how radio waves would have been considered “magical” by our ancestors).

Besides, how come the most “religious” amongst us stay home and pray instead of attending church? It may have something to do with that 501(c)3 status that makes various organized religions subject to the whims of the federales. Perhaps it could be more something more akin to the circumstances surrounding Seldom Seen Smith. As an example of yet another potential explanation, some Tridentine (traditional, pre-Vatican II) Catholic conservatives told me years ago that the Vatican has been usurped by Satan, and thus the Holy Roman See needs to be rescued from the clutches of the devil (these same folks also described to me how they believed that the Apocalypse was near since this capture of the Catholic Church was supposed to pave the way for the Antichrist). Regardless of the specific reason, once the truly faithful become fucking fed up with the clergy, you know the overall situation has just become that much more exciting.

Similar to the Tridentine Catholic admonition of “hate the sin and love the sinner,” I postulate that we “hate the clergy and love the devoted believer,” since there is nothing to gain and a hell of a lot to lose by completely alienating otherwise good people, such as the Mormons. To be fair, do they have problems of mass intergenerational indoctrination? Yes. Are there problems that certain individuals and even married couples have with the morality of the Latter-Day Saints? Absolutely. Does the Mormon clergy capitalize on these issues (and others) by manipulating the rank and file membership into doing whatever they want, especially when it comes at the expense of their family’s welfare or even their own individual happiness? No doubt in my mind about that; however, I find it unconscionably cruel for people to so publicly ridicule the Mormons for simply having a spiritual faith. It is not fair to condemn the average Mormon for something their unaccountable clergy does.

Objectivity concerning the Mormons would become a failure if analysis of them halted right there without consideration of the good that they have done. Their structure of private charity works heads and shoulders above the various government versions. I don’t think there exists a state-run welfare system that values labor, tithes, and neighborly care in any serious way that can even begin to compete with the Mormons. They are also required by their theology to materially prepare for when the physical infrastructure breaks down. While this may be exacerbated by concerns of having to eventually survive a century-long siege, at least their heart is in the right place.

Unfortunately, I do not recommend buying from Mormon canneries since their products are not cost-effective relative to other sources, and even when they are, their availability is scanty. According to this comparison shopping table that I had help with compiling, a 50lb sack of rice cost $73 on the Provident Living online shopping center whereas that same sack cost $42 at Costco, $40 on Amazon, and $18 at Sam’s Club; 10lbs of sugar cost $26 at Provident Living as opposed to $20 on both Amazon and Ebay, $16 at Costco, and $6 at Sam’s. Of course, Provident Living does not sell either garbage bags, honey, toilet paper, bleach, or buckets of any size; Costco, Sam’s, Amazon, and Ebay do sell those items and even more that would be very useful in a grid-down scenario of some kind.

Of course, the anti-Mormon bashing has been brought into the limelight due to Willard Romney’s acceptance of the GOP Presidential nomination with jokes about whether his magical underwear will be a key determining factor in foreign policy decisions. This is exacerbated by the hidden camera footage taken of some Freemasonic-esque Mormon rituals that take place within the Salt Lake Temple. While the footage (and related videos by the same uploader) show an admittedly creepy quasi-interactive film about the creation myth of the Garden of Eden (as an aside, Satan was my favorite character actor), it was disheartening for me to watch a different video blurb from this same uploader admitting that he hopes that his work will “cast Romney in a new light.” In the attempt to get el presidente reelected, an entire religious faith is going to be smeared in much the same manner than Scientology has been (in both instances without distinguishing between the devoted faithful and the duplicitous clergy).

Admittedly, while these high-level initiate Mormon rituals in some ways remind me of the Cremation of Care, I still fail to see how a subjective perception concerning the nature of this reality is in any way, shape, or form initiating coercive aggression against me or anyone else. Maybe it’s some sort of primal behavior to attack others for believing in a different sky ghost than you do. Might I be so bold as to suggest that this artificial focus upon differences in religiosity is an attempt by the Establishment to balkanize the people against each other along lines of natural prejudice, so as to prevent them from ever unifying against the enemy rebel government that equally oppresses us all? I think the best push back that can be done is for other Christians to befriend the Mormons and learn from them what they can (besides doing business together). Only through uniting disparate factions will any of us have any realistic chance of achieving victory over our common overlords who enslave the unborn with mountainous debt that is levied upon a promise of their future productivity.

Mao Tse-Tung on Guerrilla Warfare

When various methods of lawful process eventually fail, the only realistically available remedies left are those involving physical force; guerrilla warfare is one manifestation of that, which necessitates an understanding of military science. The characteristics of a warrior do not necessarily entail the use of conventional weapons; it was neither semi-automatic carbines nor cardboard signs that have brought revolutions into being, but the character of the citizens of the formative nation that brought it into being. Courage, like marksmanship, can be taught to a man, but you have to drill it into his head, all the while emphasizing that strength and training without discipline is virtually useless.



Guerrilla warfare is not to be considered as something independent unto itself, but merely an element of a much larger overall effort. Strategy emphasizes offensive, situationally aware nimbleness. Most importantly, is must have the mass popular support of the domestic population, without which, it would be better not to begin a campaign in the first place.

As an unconventional form of warfare, guerrilla operations, when compared relative to more conventional tactics and military units, possess distinct advantages and weaknesses. The fluidity and flexibility of guerilla bands contrasts that of conventional armies who tend to be much more static defensively as well as focused offensively more on waging pitched battles. Simultaneously, guerrillas are materially dependent (at least initially) upon their enemies by stripping their weapons and equipment from defeated soldiers (in this way, guerrillas get stronger as their opponents gets weaker); the sheer numerical strength of a well-financed opponent must be taken into consideration, for any sort of supposed “last stands” can only end in defeat for the guerrilla.

Mao Tse-Tung at one point refutes some excuses that came from civilians who were reluctant to become guerrillas:


“There are those who say: ‘I am a farmer,’ or ‘I am a student;’ ‘I can discuss literature but not military arts.’ This is incorrect. There is no profound difference between the farmer and the soldier. You must have courage. You simply leave your farms and become soldiers. That you are farmers is of no difference, and if you have education, that is so much the better. When you take your arms in hand, you become soldiers; when you are organized, you become military units.”


He then goes onto to describe how those individuals who fight “valiantly and aggressively” become battle-tested leaders who surpass those professional soldiers who lack actual combat experience.

Nationalism is considered by Mao is be an indispensable tool in uniting the people against their Japanese oppressors. Many times, Mao reinforces not just the military, but also political training of the guerrillas, particularly in regards to their efforts in recruiting individuals into the resistance as well as maintaining cordial relations with the people in general. By having a concrete political goal (in Mao’s case, the expulsion of the Japanese from mainland China), the “national consciousness [is] awakened,” and therefore there would be more than enough volunteers joining up, which is also good since Mao considered draftees to lack the fortitude for the fight anyway.

Interestingly, Mao expressed his desire for what he called, “an unprecedented epoch of peace.” He saw the guerrilla war by the Chinese against the Japanese as not just a nationalistic struggle, but also a global one for all mankind, where “the independent, happy, and liberal China that we are fighting to establish will be a part of that new world order.” A part of me wonders whether that concept is the same as that described by H.G. Wells as the New World Order; just a thought.

Rules of conduct, securing base areas, and tenacity in harassing the enemy slowly over time are all aspects of guerrilla warfare that Mao placed importance on as part of his resistance strategy. Valuing hierarchical structure, Mao described the scale of units ranging from a guerrilla band all the way up to a regiment, and everything in between. He did favor merging regular army units with civilians into cohesive guerrilla units so as to marry the military and political elements together, since he saw that synergistic dynamic as being vital to the success of the revolution; admittedly, he also mentioned the limitations of local militia units, since they were not allowed to venture beyond the boundaries of their own particular areas.

Mao Tse-Tung’s On Guerrilla Warfare (as translated by USMC Brigadier General Samuel Griffith) is a uniquely insightful look at the practical utility of guerrilla warfare by someone who empirically demonstrated that it could win wars. Despite what your feelings are about his later tyrannical actions, it cannot be denied that Mao was able to rally the Chinese and get them focused on defeating the Japanese invaders with devastating effectiveness. I do suggest that political dissidents read this short book if for no other reason than to learn not from a historian, but instead from an actual participant who was able to put those guerrilla principles into action and achieve victory.

Victim Mentality – The Last Bastille Podcast #64

Audio version of my article on the victim mentality. This episode is available as a free downloadable podcast.



Episode Description

People can feel trapped in their own circumstances. At the mercy of some malevolent force, or simply on the unlucky side of Fortuna‘s wheel, it is not at all uncommon for certain individuals to believe that their entire lives are subject to the vicissitudes of fate. Breaking free of this mental prison is essential towards regaining self-determination.

Featured music is AshleyAlyse’s “A Puzzling Predicament,” and Bosa’s “King’s Quest,” both of them available pursuant to CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 Unported.

The LRC “Knowledgable Libertarian” 30-Day Reading List

Becoming more aware of the intricacies of the problems that beset us all with grief can provide an increased utilitarian value. Hopefully, by understanding the 20,000,000,000 details of how it all hangs together, perhaps real solutions can be derived and implemented (or at least field-tested and weeded out). However, preaching to the choir and reinforcing already accepted dogma is not at all productive, and can even lead to the snake eating its own tale, as represented by the Ouroboros.



What intrigued me about this particular reading list is that Robert Wenzel claims that:


“[I]t is designed to introduce to the busy individual the essence of libertarianism…[i]f one reads one article, slowly and carefully, per day, by the end of 30 days one should have a very strong grasp of libertarian principles and a basic understanding of Austrian economics.”


Not only was the basic claim of spoon feeding bite-sized portions of data appealing to me in terms of it’s proven utility in persuading individuals to seriously consider becoming libertarians, but this specific list was open to testing by anyone. So, I decided to give it whirl, and here are my findings.

Some of this material seems to be simply reinforcement of libertarian philosophy. Henry Hazlitt wanted libertarian apologists to become dedicated to the intellectual defense of liberty in specific areas, whether they be monetary policy, certain kinds of taxes, or overbearing bureaucratic regulations. Lew Rockwell seems to think that since John Flynts’ “Eight Marks of Fascism” has been satisfied by the current United Socialist States of America, then what we need to do is to encourage an end to nation-states. My favorite Murray Rothbard article was his one on how he would prefer political dissidents to be “radical” rather than anarchistic, even if they were of the minarchist variety.

Most of these articles, however, appear to be cheerleading for the Austrian school. Ludwig von Mises asserts that economics determines all of the events in history. David Gordon ridicules Tim Jackson’s notion that it is better to become less productive. Robert Higgs details his conversion to Austrian economics based largely on its independence from slavishly depending on government data sets regarding alleged economic activity (most of which are phony anyway, like the CPI). Wilheim Ropke postulates that private property ownership provides an automatic order to society. Yuri Maltsev says that socialized medicine is bad, especially because of his own experiences with it; Rothbard agrees with Maltsev on this point.

Speaking of Rothbard, a whole slew of his articles that make up this reading list are, in large part, focused on economics. He explains why the business cycle itself is the cause behind recessions and depressions alike. Next, he shifts the focus away from various typologies of taxes to the actual amounts they siphon away from the free market. Mr. Rothbard lays out the methodology of praxeology in a simple, easy to read format. Agreeing with Lysander Spooner, Rothbard describes why some behaviors that are considered culturally as vices are in fact not criminal in anyway, shape, or form. Given the fraudulent practice of fractional reserve lending, Rothbard wanted the entire national debt repudiated, seeing that it was simply nothing more than a fake debt that is illusorily owed to the international banking cartel. Rothbard denigrates the false notion of a “public sector” in the first place, since it connotes a productive capacity that it just simply does not possess. Rothbard also demonstrates how the increases in the government mandated “minimum wage” causes a concurrent increase in unemployment.

Considering all the positive aspects of these articles, some are hard to swallow. Walter Block asserts that slumlords provide a valuable service to their tenants and in actuality suffer from the effects of government intervention. Rothbard postulates how water can be privately owned. To top it all off, Mr. Rockwell champions popular education of market processes, but then muddies the water with exalting the corporatist Wal-Mart as if it functions on free market principles instead of by government privilege. Maybe I am misunderstanding these claims, but then again, my capitalistic mindset cringes at the notion that oligopolies are somehow “free market,” that an absurdly abundant natural resource is somehow treated as if it were scarce, and that sleazy con men are somehow providing valuable services. As a final caveat, Wenzel screwed up the hyperlink to Mises’ article, “On Equality and Inequality;” his link instead directs you towards Rothbard’s article on the basics of praxeology. Mises’ inequality article is located here at the Mises Institute.

What really grinds my gears is that besides Hazlitt and Rockwell’s suggestions that libertarians need to become more “educated” so they can proselytize to the unconverted mainline public, there is no other recommended methodology that is actually realistic at securing our Liberties. For instance, only the Congress can repudiate the national debt, only your local city council can abolish the government indoctrination centers in your area, and only your state legislature can nullify ObamaCareNOT YOU! The kickoff for any sort of these kinds of remedies intrinsically relies on some kind of government agent (or batch of them) to actually initiate an action that will then cause a domino effect that the free market can capitalize on (pun intended).

Until that happens, we might as well be flying in circles around the airport of Liberty, wistfully hoping that the pilots will actually land the damn plane already. Metaphorically speaking, responsible adults would recognize that the government pilots are their greatest threat, and thus would take the initiative by attempting to escape the plane themselves, encouraging the rest of the passengers to go with them. Even if no one else wanted to go, there is no reason why you personally shouldn’t try to escape the plane of Statism by grabbing a parachute and skydiving your way to freedom. With any luck, you’ll even survive the entire ordeal with nary a scratch. Of course, the problem with metaphors is that they can’t take into consideration all the relevant multifaceted variables, but I hope you (more or less) get the general idea.

Overall, the best utility of this reading list would be best applied towards the brand new, green-horned, Ricky recruits who are not only predisposed towards libertarian philosophy, but also just ignorant enough to the degree that the material presented here appears to them to be true revelations, as opposed to the same old drudgery of whining about the State that I’ve been accustomed to for some years now. Though Rockwell’s article on moral courage using the turbulent histories of Hazlett and Mises was very enlightening for me, it suffers from the sin of misplaced emphasis in that not all truths need to be spoken regardless of the context (admittedly, this a relatively minor point with regards to the moral of the story). Like most of the alternative media, there was virtually no think-tank styled brainstorming or field-testing of anything that could be used to manifest Liberty of either the laissez-faire minarchist or even anarcho-capitalist variety.

When Patriot Rockstars Go Bad

There’s been a feud that started recently (and that is still on-going) between Mark Dice and Alex Jones (AJ). Apparently, it got started mainly when Mark Dice got shafted by AJ regarding getting his book royalty check late. This does come as a unfortunate surprise, since it leads to internal balkanization.



Dice explains it in the video description for “Alex Jones: Make a Million Dollars a Year Selling My Vitamins:


“Alex Jones and I’s falling out explained. In April of 2011 I was expecting a payment from Big Brother and it was almost two weeks late and when I called and asked for the check, he flipped out and told me to fuck off and said he’d pay me the following month instead because of a misunderstanding about the terms of my payments. I owed that money to the IRS within days because April 15th was right around the corner. I explained this and calmed him down, and got him to send the check but then he still turned his back on me and dumped all my other books which he carried for the last three years and never had me on again even though we agreed it was just a misunderstanding. I was very hurt at the things he said to me on the phone and how things went down. Imagine one of your role models telling you to fuck off and that they wish they never dealt with you, and all over a misunderstanding that should have been easily fixed.

“That was April of 2011, and after six years of being a regular on the show every few months, all of a sudden I stopped getting asked to come on, and he stopped stocking my books after our misunderstanding, which we supposedly got through, but apparently he still decided he was done with me. That’s the gist of it. Not wanting to bite the hand that feeds me, I kept this to myself hoping not to piss him off any more than he already was at me. Then over the next six months or so, I see his business model change from selling DVDs to Multi-Level Marketing vitamins and infomercial weight loss claims and so I started giving my analysis on this along with the lead, mercury and arsenic in the Kool Aid he was pushing. No longer putting him on a pedestal as I had for years I clearly started seeing him hype things up I knew weren’t accurate and sensationalize half-truths and misunderstandings (i.e. getting a phone call from the NSA, when in reality it was a prank using a caller ID spoofer).

“In my opinion he has to do everything he can to increase his web hits and increase ad revenue because he has so much overhead since the infowars studios grew so big with such a large facility. He’s a conspiracy shock jock entertainer basically, that’s why “everything” is a conspiracy and he doesn’t debunk anything because that’s not fun and exciting radio like talking about how a Swat Team is going to come to your house at any moment to confiscate your guns.

“Then I just found out he blocks me from his YouTube channel so his videos don’t show up on my homepage anymore. I only commented two times on any of his videos over the years, so I wasn’t even debunking him in the comments section there or even really commenting at all. I believe they just wanted to take preemptive action to make sure I wouldn’t do that when they heard I was making fun of his Kool-Aid, Beyond Tangy Tangerine and that I wasn’t going to be intimidated into keeping my mouth shut anymore. So, I believe it all comes back to money again. I think he was pissed that my talking about the Kool-Aid would hurt sales and so they blocked me on YouTube. There’s a little more to it than this, but this is pretty much the gist of what happened.”


Dice then went on to have an entire “Debunk Alex Jones Week,” as well as a parody (or two) concerning the 2012 Moneybomb.

Mark Dice, as a 9/11 Truther, got his main start because of AJ, who has had Dice as a periodic guest on The Alex Jones Show over the past 6 or 7 years (or so). AJ would sell Dice’s books through the Infowars Store. Everything has been be hunky dory for a couple of years now.

Suddenly, Dice was thrown under the bus (even the Faux Capitalist reported on it, also tying it in with AJ’s other “misadventures” regarding others within the alternative media); so it is understandable why he is getting his revenge by ridiculing AJ with parodies as well as vlogs pointing out the inconsistencies of the “InfoWhores” staff on a variety of stories they run. As much as I don’t like them for other reasons, even The Young Turks have had some run ins with AJ.

Word to the wise: stay away from AJ as much as possible. As a former listener, I have publicly mentioned before what I thought was AJ’s most egregious fault; that is, his methodology for resisting tyrants is absurdly lacking. Now it turns out that Randy Mack really was correct when he said that AJ was also marketing crappy products that don’t live up to their advertised claims. In fact, Dice’s video (whose description I’ve posted above) details how AJ is now engaging in multi-level marketing (MLM) schemes, such as with Youngevity products (a company who also do their own MLM pyramid scams) like “Tangy Tangerine,” an alleged weight-loss drink powder that Dice has demonstrated actually contains heavy metals, such as mercury and arsenic (hence the “Kool-Aid” reference).

This is what happens when Patriot Rockstars within the Carnival of Distractions fall out of favor with each other. These prima donnas are out for their own interests, and if they should decide to throw you out (despite an otherwise positive past history), you’re out. If you want to avoid such ostracism, it’s better to not associate with them in the first place.

Rules for Radicals

Motivating a group of people to do anything is undoubtedly one of the very hardest things to perform, right alongside raising children. Organizing typical Americans to act cooperatively with each other in order to collectively oppose the Establishment is often romanticized while ignoring the harsh realities of life. When all else fails, Machiavellian techniques of manipulation are seriously considered.



The philosophical foundation provided by the author is little else other than moral relativism. He seems to think that ethics are little more than temporary arbitrary whims that are given some level of validity only by the faith of those who believe in them. With this sort of reasoning then, it is hard for me to see whether Alinksy thinks there are such acts that can be designated as good or evil, since he believes that everything is essentially some shade of gray.

Alinksy claims that contradictions are a normal part of the human experience, and instead of trying the resolve the cognitive dissonance (one way or another), he simple asserts that we should all accept it just like good Orwellian drones who practice doublethink (that is, the practice of fully and completely believing in two diametrically opposed concepts simultaneously). While it is one thing to consider the pros and cons and any situation or phenomenon (and then make decisions accordingly), Alinksy seems to be perfectly fine living a life that lacks any sort of intellectual integrity at all. Just as long as he can convince you that he has no agenda (other than organizing the masses of the “Have-Nots” against the “Haves”), then he has accomplished the confidence trick of having you accept the notion that he is some hippie-dippy well-meaning populist and nothing more nefarious.

Other philosophical musings can also be gleaned. Alinksy postulates that the standard question, “Do the ends justify the means?” is incorrect, and should be instead, “Does this particular end justify this particular means?” Verbicide, at least in a partial sense, appears to occupy the political terminology, as does Alinksy’s notion that organizers are distinct from leaders in the context of creating “powers for others to use,” instead of building “power to fulfill [one’s own] desires.” He also stresses the importance of communicating problems as single issues so focused as to be uniquely particular to a specific scenario, while generalizing problems is to be assiduously avoided.

Similar to military strategists, Alinksy stresses that the principles that “revolutionary” organizers must abide by, instead of overly relying on a specific collection of methodologies. The 13 rules for radicals are as follows:


  1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
  2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
  3. Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy.
  4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
  5. Ridicule is a man’s most potent weapon.
  6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
  7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
  8. Keep the pressure on.
  9. The threat is usually more terrifying that the thing itself.
  10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
  11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counter-side.
  12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
  13. Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.


His techniques of manipulation are not only ingenious, but also quite cunning. Alinksy is very media-savvy, and he uses the mainstream press as a platform to laugh at his enemies (to be fair, in a very limited sense, I completely agree with him on this technique; we all need to ridicule the Establishment much more often). The suggestion to surreptitiously use suburbanite “middle-class” Americans to dump their stock in whatever corporation that is the designated target seemed just as devious as it was effective; this was described by him as an example of the “tactic proxy.” As an example of synthesizing his own rules by applying them to a particular tactic, Alinksy described one action that involved ruining a symphony concert in Rochester, NY as part of an overall effort to conduct push back against Kodak:


“I suggested that we might buy one hundred seats for one of Rochester’s symphony concerts. We would select a concert in which the music was relatively quiet. The hundred blacks who would be given the tickets would first be treated to a three-hour pre-concert dinner in the community, in which they would be fed nothing but baked beans, and lots of them; then the people go to the symphony hall – with obvious consequences. Imagine the scene when the action began! The concert would be over before the first movement! (If this be a Freudian slip – so be it!)”


So, by literally having a whole slew of people farting during a concert, Alinksy was hoping to flex their power to disrupt it, thereby demonstrating how a culture jamming technique could be used to ridicule his opponents and eventually pressure them to cave in and do whatever he wanted them to perform.

Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is a rambling treatise of sorts about how the poor can conduct class warfare without guns. It reveals the attitude of how one views the world in such as way as to be perfectly comfortable manufacturing conditions to the point where each side to a conflict are guided like pawns on a chessboard according to however the “organizer” wants them to move. This dialectical manipulation of both the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoise” alike is emblematic of how balkanizing people against each other is easily accomplished.