Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

The Virtues of Violence

Discussion in 'Preparedness & Survival' started by simon99, Jan 4, 2014.

  1. simon99

    simon99 Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,673
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Violence In The Face Of Tyranny Is Often Necessary


    Thursday, 02 January 2014 05:20 Brandon Smith




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

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

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

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

    To Fight, Or Pretend To Fight?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Arguments For And Against Violent Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Virtues Of Violence

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

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

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

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

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

    AMProducts Maple Valley, WA Jerk, Ammo Manufacturer Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    1,856
    Whoa, talk about creative writing... this guy deserves a prize.

    1) The Finns were expecting a war with the soviets, immediately after the soviets and the germans pushed into poland, they knew their time would be coming and soon.
    2) The soviets had killed the bulk of their officer corps in the purges of the 1930's, they had also purged most of the finnish communists in exile in the soviet union.
    3) The soviets counted purely on grunt power to carry the day, the basis of their strategy was to drive a division down every available road and shoot up everything at the other end of it.
    4) The soviets marched in with a massive mechanized force, since finland is covered in trees, this immediately ties your forces to the roads, meaning you have ZERO control of the countryside.
    5) The Finns were fighting on their home turf, they understood winter mobility better than a foreign adversary.
    6) Conscript invading armies are a poor substitute for professional part time soldiers.
    7) The major european powers and the US gave aid and support to finland against the soviets, this made the winter war a public relations disaster for the soviets, their armies and leadership looked both foolish and inept.

    I should also point out that the winter war was only foreplay, just over a year later was the continuation war, where the soviets again decided to push in again, however by this time the Finns were aided by a historical ally across the baltic: Germany.

    To say that the winter war is in any way a template for a "liberty movement" to conduct a civil war is at best a joke, and radical misunderstanding of history.
     
  3. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    One fine article of truth.
    Best of the year to date.
    :thumbup:
     
  4. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    I think the message is more important than anything.
    Still much truth in regards to our status and what will become necessary if the path the country is on continues.
     
    Sabertooth and (deleted member) like this.
  5. AMProducts

    AMProducts Maple Valley, WA Jerk, Ammo Manufacturer Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    1,856
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

    I didn't even get into the reasons why the "winter war" was a horrible example. Lets point that out then:

    1) Finland still had a functioning central government and a significant amount of infrastructure, which meant unity of command, unity of intelligence, this allows resources to be used more efficiently, masses of troops can be countered by redeploying forces to counter, opportunities can be exploited.
    2) In a "liberty movement" revolt, you are fighting an indigenous army, with another indigenous army. The outcomes are going to look more like sub-saharan africa, or france, and unless the participants are incredibly shrewd the system that emerges from such a revolt is going to look more like stalinist russia, or revolutionary france. Words like "the terrors" and "the purges" and "pogrom" will be household and very very real. To insist that you could somehow win a shooting war in your own country is not well supported by history.

    A shooting war on us soil is a really bad idea for these exact reasons:
    * Only a fool would try to stand up against the US military (name one country in the last 30 years who has done this successfully).
    * Even if you are successful, you are essentially a traitor to the United States, you have spilled the blood of your kin, this means other citizens who lost family fighting in/with the military will not welcome you or give you support. You will unlikely be the beneficiary of military defectors if they were involved in combat with you, as they probably lost friends and family.
    * Collateral casualties are an inevitable part of any conflict, so you can count those people out also.
    * You have no base of operations, no supply lines, and no backup. You are funding your own war, that's fine if your name is bill gates. This means you will be counting on the spoils of war as a means of putting food in your belly, ammo in your guns, and fuel in your vehicles. Or you will be stealing it from the locals.

    All in all, the above puts you in a position where even if you win, you have probably left enough destruction to be brought up on war crimes at the hague. But I suppose you shouldn't start counting your chickens before the eggs hatch, chances are you and your family will die in a drone strike.

    That said, what would a winning template be for fighting an effective insurgency in the united states? The way I look at it, the population of this country is used to 3 things that maintain the legitimacy of the government:
    * Electricity - without this few other things in our everyday lives would be possible
    * Water - Depending on where you are, this doesn't happen without electricity
    * Security - The lack of either two of the above greatly undermines this, as gas and water won't be pumped, police won't be on patrol and on a fundamental level security will completely break down

    From this, you don't need to shoot anyone or blow anything up, you could do a significant amount of damage with a chainsaw, and a shovel. Chopping down trees to block roads, undermining electrical transmission systems, sabotaging water reservoirs and aqueducts. The government will overreact, because they ALWAYS overreact. This will make the government appear inept, and government overreaction will delegitimize the state in a major way. A major public relations push towards decentralizing the state will look much better to the citizens than blowing things up and killing people. I don't expect the government to go quietly, but they will not be able to use proportional force, and being able to characterize every raid as an enemy action, every cop on the streets as an oppressive occupier will make the difference.

    This is why most successful partisan movements have always had a group that does the dirty work, and another political arm who exploits it. Look at Sinn Fein and the IRA, the IRA did all the shootings and bombings, Sinn Fein characterized all the violence as the result of the british occupation, and now they are a dominant political party in the republic of ireland. This is a successful model that only required the effort of a few hundred, and yes while thousands were killed on both sides, compared to the winter war where over a million were killed it looks positively bloodless.

    Now, lets see if the country's trajectory "continues". Fact of the matter is, while the US currently occupies the top slot in world economies, there are essentially no states that can tolerate a debt ratio that is 2:1, as the only way you can continue to finance debt is by having people loan you money. Once that debt ratio gets too high, people will be a bit hesitant about loaning you money. While congress and the president are satisfied to continue kicking the can of responsibility down the road, the day is coming fairly soon where there are only two options: inflate the value of the currency (already happening due to quantitative easing), or spend less money (this is starting to happen). However the real test will come in a few years as the boomers continue to retire and that fixed income they get will not be worth the paper it's printed on, and there will be no COLAs as the fed is cooking the books to make inflation look flat. As QE tapers, interest rates are going to go up, and once that happens the gov is going to be in a world of s#!t, and will have to curtail spending further.

    The government has already collapsed, it doesn't know it yet though.
     
  6. billcoe

    billcoe PDX Platinum Supporter Platinum Supporter

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    385
    We have it pretty damned good in this country. Why anyone would voluntarily want to start up the horror that would be a civil war is beyond me. How about getting your *** out there and getting your candidates voted in?

    Anyway, the Finns couldn't vote the Russians out of their country during WW2. Anyone into history should read up on the remarkable Finn named Simo Hayha, who measured @ 5' tall or so depending on who you read, and whom the Russians eventually nicknamed "The White Death". Pretty much just wanted to farm, hunt and be left alone. Amazing fella. For reading starters, check the tongue in cheek "badass of the week" site: Badass of the Week: Simo Hayha Excerpt from that site:
    badass-simo.jpg

    badass-simo.jpg
     
  7. Sgt Nambu

    Sgt Nambu Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    7,548
    Likes Received:
    10,538
    Simo rocks! I believe he still holds the worlds record for sniped kills! The Finns are tough people. Independent too!
     
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  8. Got2gohuntin

    Got2gohuntin Happy valley Active Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    41
     
  9. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    Outstanding reading and writing gentlemen, pass it along!
     
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  10. AMProducts

    AMProducts Maple Valley, WA Jerk, Ammo Manufacturer Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    1,856
    Are you high? Voting in this country while it is no guarantee of the outcome you want, it isn't this: Bangladesh elections marred by deadly violence | News | DW.DE | 05.01.2014

    No one is going to attack you for going into a voting booth, nor is the poll likely to be firebombed while you're there.

    If you really think the US is so bad, you should travel a bit more, I've been to third world s-holes where the army was on the streets, would be freedom fighters, drug gangs and the police were duking it out with FALs, AK-47's, RPGs. While I totally appreciated the novelty of it as a tourist, however, I instantly realized that I could go to the airport and leave pretty much any time I wanted to.
     
    MikeE and (deleted member) like this.
  11. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    In some regards, Simo is still out there working away, just as Molan Labe lives today.
     
  12. Inspector

    Inspector Washington State Member

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    17
    How can we help produce change by voting when the last two presidential elections had no worthy candidates to choose from? When I must base my vote on the lesser of evils, there is a fundamental problem. And that's assuming the candidate I vote for wins. In this case that didn't happen in either election.

    One begins to think we really only have one political party. Both main parties seem to cater to the same corporate interests for example...
     
  13. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    Voter fraud by the left is out of control !
     
    GOG and (deleted member) like this.
  14. AMProducts

    AMProducts Maple Valley, WA Jerk, Ammo Manufacturer Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    1,856
    Is our system perfect? Not at all... however, we're starting from a much better place than most.

    Fact of the matter is, voting is important, but it's not the only thing you should be doing. The whole idea of "special interests" is that special interests are groups of people who have an agenda, and have bound themselves together to accomplish that goal.

    Any politician who is against special interests is against the first amendment, and american representative democracy.

    If all you do is vote, you're not doing enough.
     
  15. chemist

    chemist Beaverton OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    644
    Japan is holding up with a >2:1 debt ratio. They're a proud and homogeneous people who believe they're the Chosen. Their racism and xenophobia probably help too.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
    214% public debt to GDP, and still rising.

    The better example than Finland vs. Russia might be found in Iraq, where a lot of ordinary city folk decided to throw their lot in with their neighborhoods and clans rather than the central government. I see more and more Americans who refuse to identify with our Federal leadership, and are looking for alternatives like local currencies, localized food production, and an emphasis on community.

    Who knows, maybe we can make Washington D.C. irrelevant. Imagine them trying to collect taxes from us yokels, and all we've got is corn and beans.

    BTW, Russia still holds Finnish territory to this day - the entire Karelian peninsula, up to and including Vyborg. After paying for it with a million lives, they're not inclined to relinquish it without a fight.
     
    MikeE and (deleted member) like this.
  16. Burt Gummer

    Burt Gummer Portland Completely Out of Ammo

    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    5,495
    I was watching a show last night called "When Aliens Attack." I was corny with 70s era CGI in a new show, but it had valid points.

    Basically said that there is no chance of 'winning' against a superior enemy with vastly better technology. The battles will be lost.

    However, with guerrilla tactics after the fact it is possible to wear down the occupying force over time until it is no longer beneficial for them to stay. They specifically used the Afghan people as a example. A people that have held out against vastly superior forces for hundreds of years just through bravery, heart, and the will to survive as free men.

    That is the only way I see any rebellion happening - after the fact - when most of the twittering twits have been culled and are out of the way. Then years of resistance. NOT easy in a surveillance police state, odds are low even long term.

    Personally, I am very cynical and appreciate that I am old and will hopefully pass on before the US turns into a wasteland.

    With are all living within a Clandestine Empire that is in the stages of expiring. All Empires lash out as they expire. First at (scripted) foreign enemies and then the tyranny is directed inward.
     
  17. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Just out of curiosity, anyone familiar with the book "Unintended Consequences"?
     
  18. chemist

    chemist Beaverton OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    644
    Agreed, Burt: the goal of guerrilla war is not to win, but merely to not lose. Prolong the game endlessly, and eventually the occupiers decide to cut their losses.
    One thing about an indigenous resistance: they replenish their own numbers, potentially forever.
     
  19. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    Have heard the title, but no have not read it yet.
     
  20. GOG

    GOG State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Taku, you've got a PM.