Keep Calm and Kill the Government

Keep Calm and Kill the Government

Postby Freeman Stephen » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:50 pm

One of the most controversial posts I've ever done so be warned that in certain places in the world which may or may not include britain, you could be inviting a bullet through your head just for saying something that suggests you could be as dangerous to the establishment as they are to you.

This is what the thread is all about and I have no doubt it will suffer a quick burial under a sudden influx of thread posts about other things but here it is anyway.

Im interested to know the reasons why it is that people faced with government violence do not respond in kind. Good examples might include when the government use police or bailliffs to take property or children backed only by dubious papsrwork without any voluntary consent from those they will take the property from.

In the context of a mugger demanding you hand over your lupins to him at gunpoint, your first instinct might be to pull out your own gun (if they weren't banned for law abiding people) and insist that the lupins remain within your possession. Your counterthreat of violence would not be immoral and if the mugger tried to kill you to insist upon the lupins coming into his possession, it would not be immoral to kill him for trying or to even kill him because it was reasonable to conclude that he might kill you.

Of course many would just baulk at the pressure of the threat of violence but few would begrudge the one who did stand up to such aggregious violations, many would even congratulate such a one because the lupin thief would be much less likely to steal someone elses lupins.

Lets take the exact same scenario but remove the dick turpin hat from our erstwhile lupin thief and instead place upon his head the hat of one of her majesties finest - still stealing lupins at gun point.

What is the magic of this change of hat that turns an evil action to be defended from using violence if necessary into an action that must be complied with or at the very worst resisted only in a peaceful manner. Maybe the magic isn't in the hat but in the paperwork or the wording or the procedure but ultimately lupins belonging to you are being taken from you by violence and the very best of resistance to this for so many is believed to be peaceful resistance only, not because the overall action is different from dick turpin but because the actor making the action seems to have some superhuman rules of morality applied for some reason.

What is this reason? I guess that question sums up what Im asking here.

Why is defensive violence acceptable to counter all instances of offencive violence except when the weilder of offencive violence is the state.

Im looking for reasoning here though, not rhetoric, platitudes or distractions, and like I said, be mindful of tiannimin square and the like. We aren't living in communist china but increasibgly its only because the flag is different.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Keep Calm and Kill the Government

Postby Dreadlock » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:00 pm

One minor point. There's no such thing as defensive violence. "Violence" implies unlawfulness. Defense in the face of violence is merely force and is lawful.

I think the answer lies in psychology. As children we are sent to school and conditioned to obey authority. If we don't obey we are punished. Authority therefore becomes associated with the power and the right to cause harm and children are led to believe from a very early age that they are powerless.

By the time we become adults this belief is so deeply ingrained into our subconscious that very few of us question it. We see a uniform and we automatically become subservient and start quaking in our boots. I'm generalising of course.

The same process is used by animal trainers. A single man can walk into a field full of lions with nothing but a stick and be perfectly safe. Why? Because he raised them from cubs when he was bigger and stronger than them and taught them to respect and fear him - they know what that stick used to do. By the time they become big and strong enough to rip him to pieces they are so well trained that the thought simply does not enter their minds and if it did they would not dare act on it.

In a similar fashion dog owners train their puppies not to bite. You can put your hand in the mouth of a large, very powerful, well-trained dog and it won't bite you. You can give it a good hiding and it won't fight back - the consequences of doing so have been ingrained in its mind.

We're treated like animals and for the majority of people it works.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Keep Calm and Kill the Government

Postby Freeman Stephen » Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:24 pm

Good post dreadlock - that's beyond what I was hoping for.

Ever read the time machine (or one of the movies). The merlocks have evolved differently from the ordinary humans of the future. They prey on the humans by running hunting raids, capturing the humans alive before taking them to their underground lair.

The time traveller suggests standing up to the merkock but his new friend warns him that those who stand up are the first taken down. I hear hg wells was part of the plan against humanity but cant help thinking he was trying to say something about the present in this story.

I feel that if someone gets violent with me, I should always stand up for myself no matter who it is - even if its the state but at the same time, even if it were only the second most powerful coersive organisation getting violent with me, I would have to surrender since I am outmanned, outgunned, outtrained, etc.

I feel that to some degree there is no "violent" resistance to state violence because the state is too strong to consider it a valid option. If the people believed they could take the state on and win, they would resort to the same rationale as tackling any thief or burglar.

Good point you make about the early instillment of stockholm syndrome, though I feel the definition of violence thing is somewhat dubious because even defencive physical force is a violation of the one you are fighting - albeit justifiable since it is used in defence - I suppose Im nitpicking but most would understand even defencive force to be physical violence and I feel its important to use expressions how they would be understood by most. (for example avoid using the word government to describe the state to someone who thinks the government is david cameron and his cabinet).

Anyway, too much time is spent discussing ghandi almost as if the more frequently successful means of achieving social transition did not exist. Its fair enough that its a much more risque topic to cover but the fact that there is an inherent imbalance should at least be acknowledged.

Im done bumping my gums together for now but Id like to hear other peoplez thoughts on the subject of fighting fire with fire.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Keep Calm and Kill the Government

Postby musashi » Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:58 pm

They have an enormous gang behind them. An individual does not.

Most of us know that if we knock down and drive off the lupin thief he will run away, and we know that if we knock down and drive off the uniformed lupin thief he will come back with a really big gang of well trained, well paid, determined lupin thieves acting as one and we will suffer from more than just the loss of a few lupins and some self respect.
It is the old cow's philosophy:- Better to be milked than slaughtered.

Law is force, is it not? And the power of a state is to be measured in its capacity to make war. War upon the people is always conducted through the police/militia/palace guard/civil guard, and the police are, and always have been, our enemies.

I've said much about this before, the police; so briefly - they are always the last to come on board; they fight to the bitter end no matter what tyranny we live under, then whatever new tyrant takes over they will uphold his laws, no matter they are completely different.
What did they do when Hitler came to power? Or Stalin, or Mao, or Franco, or Mussolini, or Pol Pot, or any other murderous bastard you could name. They obeyed.

The police possess a mind set that even the craziest of mad psychiatrists could not invent. And they genuinely believe that they are reasonable people trying to do the right thing! There will be no freedom, ever, while the police exist with the mind set they have.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Keep Calm and Kill the Government

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:07 am

The old Milgram experiment springs to mind again wherein it was found that the majority of people (around 65% from memory, could be wrong) will obey authority to the extent that they will torture or murder simply because they are authorised to do so and even though it goes against their normal morale upbringing.

The conclusion was that people acting under the authority of another convince themselves that they are somehow not responsible for their actions - those giving the authorisation are. This seems to be a characteristic of those who join the police and remain there. Many good people join the police, become disillusioned and leave.

Are you guys aware of the Cliven Bundy incident which recently took place (not that it's over) in America. One family is standing up to a small army of federal agents, from the Bureau of Land Management, equipped with sniper rifles, armoured vehicles etc, that is trying to steal their land and cattle. Hundreds of well armed militia from all over the USA went to the aid of the family. The government backed down (for now). As Musashi implied, the numbers game is a vital element in confronting the government. We have the numbers, we just don't have enough people who give a shit.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


And one for the government to remember:
You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power - he's free again.
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am


Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests