“Laissez-faire is not just about economics; it is an entire way of life.”
“Laissez-faire is not just about economics; it is an entire way of life.”
Totalitarian governments have always sought to break up families. Destroying the social capital (that is, trust) between individuals is integral for the hegemonic control of any given population. Turning children against their parents is prima facie evidence of absolute domination by tyrants.
Ever since President Richard Nixon’s declaration of drug prohibition in 1971, Americans have been besieged with all sorts of disingenuous legal tactics that are emblematic of a police state, rather than what is supposed to be a free country. For anyone who even bothered to study the subject objectively, it has been designed to fail from the very beginning, in much the same way 1920s alcohol Prohibition was; the most damning proof of this are the skyrocketing crime rates and lucrative profit-making opportunities made possible by the very legal statutes mandating drug prohibition in the first place! One police state tactic, no less devastating than urban gang violence (much of which is usually over “drug turfs”), is that of civil asset forfeiture, whereby the government is legally able to confiscate your property without criminally charging you with anything (even with those “victimless” crimes), provided that they flimsily claim that your property was somehow used in the commission of a crime.
Despite the fraud that is contemporary drug prohibition, the Establishment still pushes it onto Americans because it serves their interests for incrementally more dictatorial control over the population. Part of slowly generating support for the police state is to indoctrinate those citizens most susceptible to its propaganda; enter D.A.R.E, also known as Drug Abuse Resistance Education. This non-profit corporate education curriculum turned government program is described by D.A.R.E. America as, “a police officer-led series of classroom lessons that teaches children from kindergarten through 12th grade how to resist peer pressure and live productive drug and violence-free lives.”
This is rather interesting, for why is a police officer needed to teach children much of anything? Can you imagine public school teachers being expected to chase down and apprehend a mugger, or more likely than not, pulling drivers over at the side of the road for a moving violation, in addition to their more typical duties? Remember, since anything you say in front a police officer can (and will) be used against you in court, why are public school children subjected to being exposed to someone whose alleged sphere of “Authority” extends to kidnapping and incarcerating anybody they damn well please with total impunity?
Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there; D.A.R.E. America admits on their own About page that one of the key purposes of D.A.R.E. is to “humanize” the police, so that the children will perceive officers of the Standing Army as “helpful” not just “enforcing” the arbitrary dictates of the empty suit tyrants in the legislative branch of government. Since D.A.R.E. is aimed at changing the “normative” attitudes of students, I think it is quite accurate to state that D.A.R.E. socially engineers children. I think it is not only propaganda for statist drug prohibitionists, but it is also a way to turn children into informants against their parents. Consider the cases of Joaquin Herrera and Darrin Davis snitching on their parents to the police; interestingly, poetic justice is not without irony, for both Herrera and Davis personally suffered in the aftermath of their parents’ arrests.
Perhaps all this police state indoctrination is worth it if it mitigates the illicit narcotics trade, right? Actually, wrong; many studies and academic research papers have determined that, at the very least, D.A.R.E. is ineffective in deterring the youth from experimenting with drugs, and at most, is actually counter-productive and thus worse than doing nothing. In light of how drug prohibition has utterly failed to keep illicit narcotics even out of prison, why does D.A.R.E. continue to exist?
The most likely answer to this question lies in nothing more complicated than corporatism. Not only is D.A.R.E. funded by the military-industrial complex, but there are also four “licensed” for-profit corporate distributors nationwide of the non-academic merchandise who pay royalty kickbacks to the supposedly non-profit D.A.R.E. America, ranging anywhere between 42% – 71% of D.A.R.E. America’s annual income (this was revealed by their IRS 990 tax returns between 1992 – 1994). To make matters worse, D.A.R.E. America founding board member Robert Buckingham was also the executive vice president for the distributor Jack Nadel, Inc. (if that doesn’t spell “conflict of interest,” I don’t know what does).
While there is a Texas D.A.R.E. State Coordinator, it would seem as if their mission of “establish[ing] a county community-based, self-sustaining D.A.R.E. program in every county in Texas” is thankfully not coming to fruition anytime soon. In 2004, the Travis County Sheriff dropped D.A.R.E.; an annual evaluation report published by the Austin Independent School District in 2000 stated that:
“During 1998 – 99, the local DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program (nationally known program of classroom instruction by uniformed police officers on the dangers of drugs and on ways to resist negative peer pressure) was discontinued.”
The Leander Independent School District has their own version of D.A.R.E. (known as C.A.P.P.; the Chemical Abuse Prevention Program) and the Round Rock Independent School District simply provides hyperlinks for people to visit on their own time outside of the classroom. Unfortunately, the City of College Station still actively promotes D.A.R.E.
So, what can be done about D.A.R.E. in your local area? First, you need to determine if it’s been discontinued or not, and if so, whether there has been a replacement “drug abuse education” program that is essentially D.A.R.E. in all but name. Look for the telltale signs of officer taught course material, encouragement for children to snitch on their parents, manipulative promotional advertising that would make Bernays proud, corporatist kickbacks, and federal funding. Call up the local school district, the county sheriff, and any applicable city cops asking them whether they have a D.A.R.E. program. Depending on what you discover, perhaps it is past time for you to pull your children out of public school before they are tricked by those in government to snitch on you, thus ruining both your life and their future.
Many within the Patriot Community are greatly confused as to how exactly the jury box works. Their common perception is that juries must rubber-stamp whatever the government declares to be “illegal.” This reflects their fundamental misunderstanding of what the Law actually is; it also contradicts the historically valid power of the jury to judge not only the facts of a particular case, but also the letter of the law itself.
Tracing all the way back to the Magna Carta, juries have been “a palladium of liberty” on the British Isles for several hundred years. Originally a practice by the English barons, conducting a court trial by a “jury of your peers” was eventually applied to the peasants for the purpose of maintaining the common law. What initially began as “advisory councils” to the English king became coercively binding in terms of determining what exactly is the law of the realm.
As the author declares in his opening paragraph:
“For more than six hundred years – that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 – there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”
What Spooner is literally saying here is that it is the inviolable right and proper duty of any jury to determine whether a statute, ordinance, or any other legal device of government actually serves the very purpose of the Law itself; if it does not, it is tyrannical and thus must be held as unlawful by the jury. With regards to how the jury should deal with both the facts and the law when judging a case, Spooner says:
“But, for their right to judge the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.”
In other words, it is not enough (or even a precept of justice) to try a case according to the evidence, but it is in fact necessary to do so according to one’s conscience. What this means is that, as a juror, you should place a much higher value on whether the defendant’s actions were immoral, even if they were technically illegal, if natural justice is to be served.
Unfortunately, it would seem likely to be the case that there have never been proper common law juries within these United States ever since the adoption of the federal Constitution. Spooner elaborates:
“In this corrupt and lawless manner, Congress, instead of taking care to preserve the trial by jury, so far as they might, by providing for the appointment of legal juries – incomparably the most important of all our judicial tribunals, and the only ones on which the least reliance can be placed for the preservation of liberty – have given the selection of them over entirely to the control of an indefinite number of state legislatures, and thus authorized each state legislature to adapt the juries of the United States to the maintenance of any and every system of tyranny that may prevail in such state.”
He is suggesting that because voir dire is determined by state statute and is typically conducted by both the prosecuting and defense attorneys (who are legally officers of the court and not popularly elected to their positions), then Americans have, at most, only a shadow of the ancient jury trials, and not the genuine article. In 1852, Spooner goes on to chillingly, yet accurately, predict that:
“If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States – that is, if we have had the legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights – it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced.”
Apparently, it would seem to be the case that the ineffectiveness and (quite possibly) the immorality of suffrage is not the only yardstick by which we can measure the severity of the situation we are all suffering under. I guess it should not surprise us too much that the right of trial by jury has been so downplayed by the corporate whore media as much as it has by their portrayal of it as something bothersome and stupid.
Lysander Spooner’s An Essay on the Trial by Jury is an incredibly significant work that should be read by every American political dissident, regardless of your own orientation. It not only establishes the very foundation for actual trials by jury, but it also demonstrates the viability of jury nullification. Unlike state nullification, which places all power in the hands of government agents whose incentives are antithetical to your very Liberty, jury nullification enables even one individual to halt government tyranny without having to resort to physical violence in self-defense. I think it is high time to evaluate whether it is possible to reclaim the jury box and resist tyranny by legally determining government statutes as incompatible with our several American constitutions, or simply recognize what we have lost, as Spooner did, and thus reaffirm our resolve to secure our Liberty by whatever means necessary.
“[There is] no way to assist our cruel enemies more effectually than making division among ourselves. The honor and success of the army, the safety of our bleeding country, depend upon [our] harmony and good agreement with each other… The provinces are all united to oppose the common enemy, [with] all distinctions sunk in the name of an American.”
– Gen. George Washington
Western medical know-how excels in emergency medicine. If you are suffering from a car accident or other sudden trauma, then the medical technology that pumps you full of anesthetics and separates your rib cage during surgery is truly a God send. Unfortunately, mainstream medicine completely falls apart when it comes to dealing with chronic degenerative diseases as well as other lesser yet more common ailments.
I find it rather interesting that one of the Big Pharma oligopolic corporations ended up compiling an entire medical text on diagnosis and therapy. Perhaps they needed an excuse to peddle even more pharmaceutical “medications” upon hapless patients through “their” doctors who do whatever the drug sales rep tells them to do. Of course, contemporary American medical practice is so unscientific that it’s fucking ridiculous, particularly that of the pseudo-science known as psychiatry; don’t forget the publicly acknowledged trend of wealthier patients fleeing to (even socialist!) foreign countries seeking better quality medicinal goods and services.
In any case, I’m glad to report that the “therapy” portions of this reference work were not limited to corporatist-only profitable synthetic concoctions, for other options were presented, like biofeedback and various “relaxation” methods. Come to think of it, weren’t those only “alternative” medicine techniques not that long ago? Oh well, I should know better than critique either the safety or efficacy of Big Pharma’s alchemic cocktails of death, right? Because the FDA, as an Administrative Agency, could never have any conflicts of interest or ulterior motives that would end up harming patients, now would they? But I digress…
The section on Gastrointestinal Disorders was fascinatingly gross, especially the chapter on the Approach to the Patient with Lower GI Complaints. Check out this lovely gem on farting:
“There is great variability in the quantity and frequency of rectal gas passage. As with stool frequency, people who complain of flatulence often have a misconception of what is normal. The average number of gas passages is about 13 to 21/day. Objectively recording flatus frequency (using a diary kept by the patient) is a first step in evaluation.”
“Because hepatobiliary disease alone rarely causes bilirubin levels > 30 mg/dL (> 513 µmol/L), higher levels usually reflect a combination of severe hepatobiliary disease and hemolysis or renal dysfunction. Low albumin and high globulin levels suggest chronic rather than acute liver disease. An elevated PT or INR that decreases after giving vitamin K (5 to 10 mg IM for 2 to 3 days) favors cholestasis over hepatocellular disease but is not conclusive.”
Aside from the absolutely riveting details about whether to physically restrain an actual mental retard or not, I felt as if my time would be better spent doing other useless and counter-productive things, like protesting the police state, or worse, voting for Gary Johnson.
The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy is one piece of work I will not miss returning back to the local “public” (government) library. It was completely unhelpful in terms of actually telling me what I need to be doing in a medical situation, thus negating most of its value in terms of treatment, so don’t let the title fool you. This is mainly a book on medical diagnostics, so if you can’t tell the difference between a mammogram and a pap smear, you’d be better off using the search engine on WebMD.
Lovers of liberty are completely intolerant of bullies. A sense of being constantly violated, pushed around, and stomped on is what arouses the righteous indignation necessary to motivate us to resist in the first place. It should surprise absolutely no one that tyrannical hubris seems to attract the sudden onset of lead poisoning.
In one of Michael Badnarick’s Constitutional classes, he refers to the “line in the sand.” He makes the good point that if you keep backing up every time there’s a trespass, you’ll eventually back yourself in a corner, thus making it that much harder to resist tyrants. If you are going “to draw a line in the sand,” it is much better to pick a point and stand your ground earlier on, no matter the consequences to your property, liberty, or even your life.
Of course, that necessarily begs the question about if such a line in the sand is so potentially malleable, then what lasting permanence does it truly possess? Some individuals, like Randy Mack, have in the past suggested drawing a line in concrete instead. While I appreciate the effort to symbolically firm up that sense of what is supposed to be an absolute and total commitment to a cause, there are more fundamental problems involved with the original metaphor than just how contemporary dissidents (particularly those within the Patriot Community) manipulate its ostensible meaning to the degree that those who tend to be more consistent with their principals joke about “the shifting sands of patriotism,” which of course strongly implies that many such “patriots” are disingenuous or simply insincere about their claims regarding their alleged willingness to act against the enemy rebel government.
Consider also the proclamations amongst these self-declared “militia” units whereby they will supposedly come to the aid of any other similar “militia” unit if they are attacked or otherwise being harassed by the government. I remember when the Hutraee unit all got arrested, they were quickly disowned by their militiamen-in-spirit, thus seriously questioning the sincerity of those other units (of course, if those units had submitted to the civil authority of their local Committee of Safety, they would have had no choice but to follow their lawful orders to assist these other units as appropriate, thus negating any sort of cowardly backing out, as was the case here). Perhaps if they seriously reflected on when should you shoot a cop, then all this phony posturing about how its wrong to kill these flatfoots can start evaporating, especially considering their key characteristic as the Standing Army that the Founders warned us about.
It is almost as if those who brag most loudly about their alleged “line in the sand,” are simultaneously those who are firmly on the left end of the other (not so) thin line. As Gary Hunt describes it:
“Let’s take a line that runs from left to right, with no political affiliation, philosophy, or ideology, in mind. At the right end of the line are those who have been members of the Patriot Community for quite some time. Their experience, research, and observations, along with their current mindset, have moved to the point of no return — that ‘state of Nature’ that the Framers understood. They might easily be referred to as extremists, as were those ‘Indians’ who made tea in Boston Harbor. On the left end of the line, we have those who have only recently began to see something amiss in government.”
In other words, it’s almost as if too many of the new guys prefer to express their bravado rather than knuckle down and attempt to gradually enter into a state of nature by appreciating their natural liberty. Unfortunately, the message of Liberty is not for everyone, since not everyone wants to be free; believe it or not, too many humans in this day and age prefer the tranquil comfort of the familiar to the animating contest of freedom.
Given that today is Patriot’s Day, perhaps it would behoove us to consider the actions of the colonial militia and other individuals on April 19th of 1775. Captain John Parker followed the lawful orders of the Lexington Committee of Safety by mustering the Lexington militia on the town green, despite suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. Paul Revere, a veteran of the French & Indian War, performed many tasks, one of which was grabbing John Hancock’s trunk of damning papers out of Buckman’s Tavern and hauling them, with the assistance of Hancock’s clerk John Lowell, through the ranks of the militia just as the British regulars entered the town. Samuel Whittemore, another veteran of the French & Indian War, noticed the Regulars marching through Menotomy; once he grabbed his musket, two pistols, and calvary saber, he ambushed the Regulars single-handedly.
Let’s certainly not forget the women-folk here. Sarah Tarrant once taunted a Redcoat to shoot her after he was already aiming towards her head at point blank range. Mother Batherick delivered six British grenadiers to Captain Ephraim Frost. Most impressively, Captain Prudence Wright formed her own militia unit to patrol Pepperell; she also held up British Captain Leonard Whiting at gunpoint, delivered him as a prisoner of war, and had his papers sent to the Pepperell Committee of Safety for analysis. Regardless of whether it be the actions of someone like Parker, Revere, Whittemore, Tarrant, Batherick, or Wright, I sincerely doubt any self-declared “militia” celebrity nowadays would even dare to slightly broach any of their actions, for fear of being arbitrarily incarcerated in prison.
How come almost none of the more experience members of the Patriot Community come out publicly and share their wisdom, that upon deep reflection, they’ve realized that the proverbial “line in the sand” is nothing more than a myth? I sense they recognize just how powerful the metaphor is held by those on the far left side of the other (not so) thin line. In the attempt to not hurt their feelings, thus discouraging them, they refuse to tell the truth on the matter; on the other hand, it is also equally possible that they are just cowards who are afraid of being ostracized by the useful idiots who have now infested the Patriot Community.
I used to say in private conversations on various occasions that my personal “line in the sand” was that if the central government ever instituted a Chinese-styled one-child policy in these United States, then that is when active guerrilla warfare operations need to commence if we are going to have any sort of future; it wasn’t until later I realized just how fallacious and unwittingly disingenuous that statement was (particularly ever since Gary Hunt pointed it out to me). Once I gave that up, I performed some real soul-searching regarding what I was willing to tolerate without resorting to the cartridge box. It wasn’t until recently that I realized that due to various unknown circumstantial factors, it is literally impossible to sincerely war-game ahead of time what I would and would not be willing to do in certain situations.
Listen, you can disagree with the Establishment all you want. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s what makes you a dissident in the first place. All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t have any illusions about what you claim you are going to do when XYZ event happens, especially considering a lot of them have previously transpired in some way, shape, or form already. It’s one thing to visualize how you would defend yourself in violent situations, but it’s an entirely different matter what you will do in a given real world scenario.
So, this Patriot’s Day, I would suggest that you seriously reflect on the fallacy of the “line in the sand” as it is applied today. We’ve all been fed a lot of hokum by the Carnival of Distractions, and grandstanding public declarations of bravado is just one more unproductive divisive activity amongst American dissidents today. Consider moving more along the other (not so) thin line towards a state of nature instead.
The following is a document that can be used whenever an agent of the State requests and/or demands anything of you. Original version was created by Charles Curley and Claire Wolfe. This particular work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Any other content within this work that may not be covered by this CC-BY-NC-SA license is hereby used under the intention of Fair Use. No copyright infringement intended.
A number of political dissidents consider human action to be purposeful behavior, but is it purposeful to do the same thing over and over again, and yet expect a different result? Would it not make more sense to question, in good faith, the viability of certain methods? Perhaps it would behoove us to seriously reevaluate given assumptions about some techniques of political activism.
Having paid attention to media coverage of street demonstrations over the past decade, it would seem that there are fundamentally three different kinds, or goals, of street protesting. The first is little more than being a grandstanding media whore, whereby grabbing the attention of the mainstream media “spreads awareness” about a particular topic, and that by itself, it is somehow going to mystically solve the problem of whatever the protester is bellyaching over. A variation on this is the street demonstrator who deliberately commits an act of civil disobedience in a blatantly public fashion (this is done so as to increase the probability they will be arrested by the police); the goal here is to rely on jury nullification in order to either set or reverse a judicial precedent, which will mystically somehow redress some other unrelated grievances. Finally, demonstrations provide a unique opportunity for dissidents to engage in a morale-raising spectacle with others who think like they do, all the while accomplishing little else.
The problem with each of these kinds of street protesters is that each variation not only regularly fails in achieving its ostensible aims, but also the fact that there exist better ways to achieve whatever it is they want. There are several mechanisms accessible to us that can be used in lieu of these ineffective types of protesting, sans the cost of police brutality (including, but certainly not limited to, baton charges and kettling) while simultaneously performing at least as well, if not dramatically better than, even the very best that such street demonstrations could have accomplished idyllically.
For instance, creating alternative media and culture jamming the Establishment’s propaganda apparatus (through such methods such as subvertising, pranks, and especially meme hacks) appeals to both the mind and emotions of the public, instead of simply annoying the living fuck out of them. Ostracism of government informants, agent provocateurs, and deep-cover intelligence operatives is time well spent, instead of wasting it on constructing banners and flags that get rarely used on protest marches anyway. Discrete civil disobedience allows you to live free despite the arbitrary mala prohibita commanding dictates of the State. Informally small get-togethers at individual private homes is just as morale-raising as uselessly chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” or “This is what democracy looks like!” repeatedly in a public park like a bunch of mindless zombies. I would rather dissidents attend their local freedom festivals rather than waste their time, and risk what relatively little freedom they had left, by demonstrating in the street.
I still chuckle whenever one of my detractors claims that I’m acting inconsistent with my principles for publicly denouncing the viability of street demonstrations, as I’ve done in the past. The basic assertion is that I’m indescribably wicked or just simply mistaken for never even attending a protest. As I’ve said before, I have no intention of attending a protest of any kind, about anything, whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing about my political philosophy that requires me to act like a clueless hooligan. It would appear to be the case that the sycophantic followers of talk radio con-artists are pushing guilt trips if you don’t succumb to their emotional rhetoric about your “failure” to participate in useless demonstrations.
Some dissidents consider street protests as a way of “fighting the system.” This is fallacious, for they are not actually struggling, but whining about what ails the body politic. Simply complaining about Leviathan does not stop it; the withdrawal of consent (or as Ayn Rand put it, removing “the sanction of the victim”), coupled with defensive force, is what actually stops the march of statism. A sign waving coward is not a warrior for his people.
That’s probably the worst part of protesting, the fact that it’s nothing more than a proxy for real action. Instead of standing up and bravely disagreeing with the tyranny our people are suffering under, they elect to instead march through the streets as an amorphous mob, chanting manufactured slogans and waving cardboard protest signs. What cowardliness is this? They’re treating it as if it were a compromise between the need to do something authentic and the fear of taking meaningful action that could actually accomplish something
According to Robert-Arthur: Menard, protesting is a type of acceptance giving legal permission to the government to do whatever it was they wanted to do in the first place. He suggested, in good faith, that what demonstrators ostensible want to do is a public rejection of the regime’s policies. Menard is fundamentally correct in that there are better ways of achieving the goals of activists rather than through street actions, such as by writing letters to bureaucrats or filing legal documents in court; of course, I doubt Menard understands the motivation behind the Carnival of Distractions, but his overall point is well taken, despite the fact that genuine sincerity is the exception, not the rule, of contemporary political activism.
Speaking of the disingenuous Patriot Rockstars who guilt trip their listeners, that reminds me of this much touted concept of “peaceful protesting” they’ve been pushing that I’ve heard about ad nauseum. Where the hell did this come from? Did everyone just forget about the Vietnam War protesters back in the 1960s who trail-blazed the technique of street demonstrating itself? Peaceful protesting seems little different from the dog training that TSA performs at airports nation wide; both are inherently designed to acclimate you into being docile and submissive to agents of the State who are the complete enemies of your liberty. Consider that Vietnam War protesters (including many of whom were returning veterans) understood that should the stormtrooper riot cops get rowdy, they still retained their natural liberty to defend themselves from such coercive violence with physical force.
Such an attitude is currently frowned on by these Patriot Rockstars who are badly attempting to emulate the so-called “civil rights leaders” of the past half century. One phony rhetorical trick says that self-defense might encourage agent provocateurs; this is, of course, the call sign of cowards, whelps, and pacifists. So-called “peaceful protesting” is intrinsically hypocritical, and demonstrates (pun intended) no commitment whatsoever to whatever principles they claim to hold. If there were any primary differences between the demonstrators of the ’60s and those throughout the 2000s, it is that the latter don’t think! Be very wary of those who advocate for “peaceful protesting,” for they are the very same individuals who either do not have your best interest at heart, or are simply too naïve to understand what they are dealing with; either way, you are better off disregarding their useless advice.
A further distinction can be made about what the Vietnam War protesters did do. Demonstrations can work if they are performed for several years, by millions of people who are focused on a single objective (in this case, ending the Vietnam War), but activists now don’t do that anymore because it’s awfully passe to be actually focused on much of anything. It’s sexy to be distracted by a myriad of problems rather than be seriously dedicated to a systemically pivotal goal. Who would want to actually solve problems when you can use the black bloc technique to bash in a window and steal an iPhone instead? It would seem to be the case that protesting now suffers from the broken window fallacy in much the same way the military-industrial complex does, as is manifested by the warfare–welfare State.
Sometimes, protests can possess the characteristics of a riot; however, what is to be gained by trashing a Starbuck’s window? I am certainly no fan of corporatism, but acting out a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat is not going to bring the empty suit, fat cat CEOs to justice. Even worse, where is the justice in “keying” random cars, or throwing trash and scattering other undesirable debris around the place? Did none of these phony “anarchist” police snitches ever consider that just in terms of probability, they are much more likely to be damaging the property of some hapless nice folks rather than trashing the cars of the actual people responsible for what they claim to be upset about? Even if they are genuine non-propertarian anarchists, is it unreasonable for them to recognize that they are infringing upon the liberty of car owners by this form of intimidation? I have a sneaking suspicion that they just don’t think!
Street actions could also work effectively if they are done in the form of rigidly organized rallies. This is what Marcus Garvey was doing with the UNIA back in the early 1920s. You want men who can mark perfectly in step, and who are dressed uniformly. That brings fear to the enemy. The closest this has come to actually happening was the 2012 Veterans for Ron Paul march, except for the fact they were individually dressed (we wouldn’t want a repeat of Cpl. Jesse Thorton again, now would we?).
John Martinson has pointed out that there is such confusion about demonstrations being somehow revolutionary. As he has said:
“I suggest thinking of what it would be like to be the evil people in power. You look out your window and see a big sign. You chuckle inwardly, and then go back to plotting how you can profit from killing more people. Protests are not revolution. Holding signs and wearing T-shirts is not fighting. It’s masturbation, it’s whining, it’s cowardly; it doesn’t do anything.
“Signs are for armchair revolutionaries and weekend rebels. They can wave their sign, and although they know deep down that they haven’t done anything, at all, they can be high and mighty to their Yuppie friends and say, ‘I was there, man.’ During the week, they look down on their co-workers and think, ‘I’m actually trying to make a difference. I’m doing something, unlike the rest of you groveling wage-slaves.’
“Protests mattered when people were willing to pick up guns, or spears, or whatever the hell was close enough to them, to bludgeon the poor SOB who intended to take their life or liberty. Protests are also tactically inefficient, unless you intend to use mass chaos as a cover for another operation. A protest can be readily turned into a riot and the ease by which it can be has been proven by law enforcement agent provocateurs, time and time again. Then a ridiculous, futile, time-wasting crowd of thousands suddenly becomes their weapon; a tool for your oppression. They turn the protest into a riot, and that gives them more reason to clamp down; of course, the clamping down isn’t the problem, it’s the mindset. Authentic revolutionary action would mean a clamping down too, but in that case your men aren’t sign waving cowards and weekend revolutionaries. They know what’s coming, and they will respond with deadly force. So, there will be a clamping down on them, but they are prepared for that clamping down, because they are organized, because they’re disciplined, because they’re trained.
“When the mob transforms into a riot by the very people you intend to resist, they can only muster the courage to spray-paint buildings and throw bricks through windows. With the illusion of safety in numbers, they might even bruise a police officer, or take their aggression out on a fellow protester or passerby, as if that does anything.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
So, does protesting work? Not as it is practiced today, it doesn’t. It utterly fails to secure anyone’s Liberty. Worse yet, it is touted by the dissident opinion makers that if we don’t do it, then you and I are somehow “negligent” in resisting tyrants. What a crock of shit they are, attempting to make use feel guilty for disagreeing with their fake “irrational exuberance.” I say it’s about damn time we took back the moral high ground from these change agents in sheep’s clothing and demonstrate to them what true freedom really looks like by calling their bluff and offering alternatives to street protesting. Now might just be the time to spread the message of Liberty by teaching our own people what methodologically does not work by way of public ridicule, open scorn, and widespread contempt against those who seek to divert our energies from where they need to be allocated, if we are indeed going to be able to tackle the Establishment in any really effective way.
“The most amount of power that anyone should ever have over someone else is being the head of their own household.”
The following are legal documents that prove that it is possible to explicitly request the State of Texas to remove yourself from the voter rolls. After I had published, “Unregistering From the Voter Rolls,” I had a nagging itch that perhaps I was incorrect about my own personal situation regarding tacit acquiescence. On a pure hunch, I contacted the county voter registrar from where I used to live (as opposed to where I live now), and discovered that not only was I still registered, but that I had been put on the “suspense list.” Needless to say, I wasn’t going to wait around until they automatically purged me, so I chose to take the explicit request route and get off the voter rolls quickly. For background information on the context behind these redacted documents (such as why I don’t vote anymore), please read, “Voting Does Not Work.”
Voter Registration Cancellation Request – [Download PDF]
Voter Registar’s Written Notice of Cancellation – [Download PDF]