And, yet, I can do the same thing.
Many years ago I said "If you love America, fear the US", and "The US is the greatest threat America has ever faced". Many people don't understand what I'm saying, so I'll explain.
It bothers me that people use the words "The United States" (or even worse, "The US") to refer to America. It bothers me less now that I recognize the evil of every State, but it does still bother me some. It's a flaw.
But, lets trace the course of this trainwreck.
Originally, there were just people. They formed communities and some of them tied their identity to those communities. Some of the communities merged, and merged again, and joined to become states. A tragic mistake, but it is as it is.
Over time, in one of the places on Earth, those states united to become a nation, a sort of compound state: America. Again, there is nothing good about nations- any nations- but we are talking about what happened, not what should have happened.
Sometimes the people who lived in America liked to point out that America consisted of states which had united, and would describe America as "the united states of America", just like I could describe myself as a combination of various body parts, which if I wanted to spell it out, I could do by saying I consist of "the various parts of Kent". Yet, I remain Kent, and the united states of America remains America.
Or, does it?
Now it seems the "Union" has become more important than America in the minds of most people. "United States" is routinely capitalized, and often "America" is dropped altogether. "America" has become unimportant.
That's like me being called "The Various Parts" instead of "Kent".
The attractive promises made at the founding of America have all been broken now. Wise people see this is where "government" always leads, and why establishing one, even with possibly "good intentions", is a horrible mistake.
This particular nation has gone from being "America" to being "the US", and the US is getting further along the path toward... well... nothing good.
It's the fault of those who continue to support government- especially by working for it. The blame that rests with people in the military and cops is exponentially greater than the blame anyone else bears- they are where the boot heel of tyranny meets the human face. They are the hired guns of the enemy- both in your hometown and around the planet. Their treachery is unforgivable.
Left to play itself out, this ends only one way- regardless of the symbol that will come to represent it.
People always try to tell me that “America” and “United States” are one and the same. Concurrently, being “Anti-US” is the same as being “Anti-American.” I tell them to look at the name: United States OF America- two different entities. America represents something tangible- geography, land, people culture. “US” is a collectivist political abstract that only exists in the minds of people who accept and consent to it.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say “Death to the US,” people think I mean to kill and destroy people and property. But since “US” is just an abstraction, all I’m really calling for is abolition. You don’t need to kill or destroy to abolish an abstraction.
Absolutely!
DeleteThat abstract is the premise for a very real and tangible threat that ultimately originates from, and is supported by, the people.
DeleteKill 'em all. Let 'God' sort them.
So I guess Gomer the Killer wants still another abstraction to clean up his murderous mess.
DeleteDo you know what the right to defense is?
DeleteA right is something you don't have to ask permission to do, which also doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights.
DeleteDefense means stopping an attack in progress, or preventing a credible threat of attack.
Having the right of self defense (which we all do) you don't have to ask permission to defend yourself from an attack or the credible threat of an attack. I don't see hardly anyone attacking me (or violating my property) or making a credible threat to do so- except for people who work for government. Do you have a right to kill the government employee who is directly violating you? Of course you do. Will you survive? Probably not. Do you have a right to kill the person who explicitly sends the government employee to violate you? Yes, of course. Again, you won't survive. If that doesn't matter, so be it. You'll be right, but dead.
But, do you have a right to kill the countless unthinking imbeciles who support government just because they don't know any better? I don't think you do. Do what you feel you must and accept the consequences- in ALL those scenarios.
I understand the preferred idea is to get everyone to see it, that way no one has to die.
DeleteBy order of reason, your right to defense applies, as it is an organized gang that has standing orders to violate everyone. Force is necessary because that is it's terms.
If everyone could see that, they would understand to reject that. But while people like us are trying to show everyone else, they are rejecting everything as to protect some statist alter-world attached ego, and we are still living in an open air prison being violated every day.
Thus the question becomes of how to neutralize or destroy all government and members.
Details like who did what degree of or knew this or that value according to such and such qualifiers and principles, etc etc.. is not important. If they are a willing active participant member, they are guilty of crimes against humanity. Thus they qualify for the list of targets of defensive action.
How do you sort and exterminate that many criminals?
Is it feasible to round them all up and banish them to an island somewhere? Can you invade the voting facilities and capture a hundred million people drug them and ship them away?
There are unsolvable problems. That is just reality. And, even if you found a solution that didn't make you an aggressor, Unfortunate Truth #6 applies: Any solved problem creates new problems.
Delete"Thus the question becomes of how to neutralize or destroy all government and members."
ReplyDeleteThe path to this begins with ignoring the tyrants.
"The path to this begins with ignoring the tyrants."
ReplyDeleteHow do you ignore a monster that hunts everyone?
It doesn't hunt everyone. It hunts those it notices. There are ways to avoid being noticed; even some of my statist relatives practice this strategy- and then ignore the rules they find too annoying. You will always need to pick your battles, even in a free society. I find this advice from Robert A. Heinlein very insightful: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
DeleteMaybe hunt is not the best word to use. I was thinking by the comparison to a monster, like Godzilla or something.
DeleteLaws are edicts, orders that stand as a constant. That is to say that it is a constant 24/7 idle coercive threat of up to and including deadly force.
"Shall be.." legal language is stating that 'it is' because law says reality will be so by force. "Shall" is the reference to force while "be" means "is reality/existence".
It claims a geographical boundary on paper and says it controls reality within those imaginary lines, by force. Hundreds of millions of people organize according to this basic principle.
It is evil.
It is a coerced reality, a threat to everyone all of the time.
When you see policeman in uniform, his presence alone is a threat. His presence says obey reality XYZ or else. It is no different than any other human demanding something by threat of deadly force.
It is no different than some thug following you around pointing a gun at you telling you what to do, what color clothes to wear, what to eat, when to shower and shave, when to cut your grass, etc.
Instead of following you around, it has an army spread out to already be wherever you go.
The cop is the weapon. Law is the demand. The thug is an organization.
The thug is a collection of voters, representatives and whoever elected 'officials' and appointees, judges, military and police, etc. They are the people who are organizing to threaten everyone. I usually refer to them as statists. They are the origin of the threat. They are a criminal gang, nothing more.
Anything you do in the interest of change freedom or liberty, will have to be directed specifically at them.
But as you already know, they do not listen or care as long they get their precious state-god to make you do what their paper says. They are unwilling to acknowledge their organized violations.
It is the thug pointing a gun at you arguing that it isn't a gun. He 'disagrees' that it is a gun, but will kill you with it if you do not do what he says.
How do you handle a thug with a gun following you around coercing you? The same way you handle a group of them spread out over an area of wherever you go.
You study them, identify their weaknesses, formulate a strategy and tactical solutions to neutralize them.
My idea is very efficient if you can get a hold of WMD's.
"My idea is very efficient if you can get a hold of WMD's."
DeleteEfficient in the same way as those you claim to hate. Acting exactly like them. A difference which makes no difference is not different.
If you used WMDs, you would kill innocent people. States call this "collateral damage", but it is murder. It makes you the aggressor. It makes you identical to those you wanted to kill. If you replace evil with evil, how is that better?
I empathize with you. I want (mostly) the same world you say you want- just without all the corpse heaps. I don't know how to get from here to there without becoming what I hate.
Some problems may have no solution.
I don't actually believe your solution would result in what we both want, either. The few who survived would be damaged by seeing so much death- I suspect they would either become hardened to death and suffering, and lose their reluctance to initiate force, or would just go nuts. There would be no industry or culture remaining. I realize not all industry and culture is worth saving, but some is- and your method wouldn't permit selectivity. I would enjoy some perks of a pre-industrial existence. I've always had a longing to be a caveman. But, I also enjoy human companionship.
I don't see the passively statist people as quite the threat you do. Most wouldn't dare to personally do the things they support the state doing- they understand instinctively it would be wrong. That leaves room for education. Most don't want to be educated out of it. Some can be anyway. Not a perfect solution, but one which doesn't turn me into what I oppose.
How do you sort them? ...according to what criteria or qualifiers?
DeleteI don't sort people... except if someone comes at me, with the intention to harm me, I guess they have sorted themselves. If there's a limited number of people coming at you, you may win. If you believe 6 billion+ people are out to get you, and you need to kill them all, you won't survive. Your way will become extinct- if you didn't kill it off by abandoning it beforehand.
DeleteAll genocides result from those who believe they should sort people. "Us vs Them", "Human vs Not-Quite-Human", "Our god vs Their god", etc.
What do you mean 'IF someone comes at you with intent to do harm'? They have turned our planet into a prison.
DeleteThere are billions of idiots who cannot mind their own business and feel a need to force their opinions.
They won't acknowledge their violation, you cannot kill them all, and you cannot sort them, then what do you suggest? ...bending over while we bitch and moan about it?
I would very much like to leave, but there is nowhere to go, thus leave means death. So I was thinking of the best way to exterminate them instead. ...because extermination is simply the most efficient means of dealing with it.
....or did you mean a cop coming at you?
Well, we all know where that goes. You have to kill an army or lick boots. I suggest we build an army and start focusing on identifying weaknesses.
I am kind of tired of having my liberty raped because people are stupid.