Love this overview. A timely reminder that the best moral course of action is to stop cooperating with the system, and the most pragmatic form of action would be to coordinate a mass of people to stop cooperating with the system. God knows we need a revolution and we're eventually going to get one, one way or another, so I pray it's a peaceful one.
This is a really good and important exploration, Christopher. Well done. I hope we will keep pushing this avenue of inquiry further till we get from the theoretical, to the strategic, to the tactical.
Eastern Europe chiming in here. 45 years of totalitarian communist rule. 34 years of fake democracy. Deterioration on all societal, economical, political, and cultural fronts. A nation that is not simply dead -- it's rotting. Every institution and every department of every single government we've had for the past ~80 years has served, in one way or another, Russian interests, while being infiltrated by and working with the country's own organized crime syndicate, itself a remnant of the old party elite. The cancer has spread so deeply and so completely, that violence is the only way here. Our closest neighbor, the one they compare us to about everything, is ahead of us in everything. The difference is that had their revolution and purge. We never did. The previous tyrants just changed colors.
You said "Mass non-compliance, walking away, opting out…I think more hope may lie there." but I don't see this as possible. To enlighten such a critical mass of the population so as to have them walk out, i.e. stop paying taxes or going to work seems idealist to me, to say the least -- people will never believe it. But buildings in flames? That's easy to rally around. So, yes -- I think violence is the only option sometimes and in some places of the world. I'd love to be proven wrong, but how will you have a peaceful revolution in China? It's simply impossible.
John Adams said the Revolution was in the mind first before the shots were fired. We need 51% part of the reason dark occultists like May 1. They are of one sound mind and ideology even if they have some differences on tactics. We need a critical mass to understand fully their God given rights and the fact that “authority” is a mental construct, a parasite of the mind. We aren’t even close to that. I think it can be done and I pledge my life to the cause but it will take a massive effort from so many of us. Once it is truly apparent in the mind, hearts and mouths of a mass people change can occur. The mouths will move to the arms appropriately if pursued.
How is violence defined, exactly? Would sanctions and blockades, which are acts of warfare, be considered violence? Is it an act of violence to be denied access to food, income, and other resources necessary for survival? Is arrest by police considered violence (I would say yes), even if you are arrested for letting your children play on a playground?
Many times, violence action is not actually taken, only threatened. Threatened violence, even if it is only implied and not explicit, tends to bring about compliance. Maybe we need to begin by just seeing if noncompliance results in actual violence that has been implied.
A more basic question would be: why should violence be "justified"?
This is not a rethorical question. Violence has a very pragmatic aim, which is usually: you win, the other loses. Unless I'm mistaken, violence is not a moral enterprise, although we hear a lot of rationalizing about it - especially in times of war.
To remain on a purely pragmactic mode: what is winning and what is losing, and is violence worth it? The few examples given in this article demonstrate that the PTB made sure it wasn't - at least towards them. It's easier to pay one's taxes and to walk the line, isn't it? But I'm not here to complain about the PTB. Given the enormity of the task, I hold the not very popular opinion that they're doing a pretty good job. Mainly.
The recurring theme in this article is freedom, and how violence should or shoudn't be used to defend it. Ok. Is there any more subjective a concept than freedom? I don't mean freedom from the State or authority, I mean pure unadulterated individual freedom. It is common knowledge that the freedom of some ends where that of others begins, so what do? Let me give you an example. I hate it when I hear someone whistle. It angers me to no end. But of course whistling is not outlawed anywhere in the world so I can't call the cops, can I? I may politely ask the whistler to stop, but it does not always work. I could be told to walk away or plug my ears but I might consider that an infringement on my own freedom - sure, we're in silly territory, but it all really pales in comparison to what is considered freedom nowadays. I could also never leave my house but I still have to go to work and do some occasional errands.
So would violence solve the problem? Let's see... If I punch someone for whistling, that might stop him but I might get in trouble with the law, which would be rather counterproductive wrt freedom. Let's just skip to the logical conclusion: the solution would be to kill all men, women and children on the planet. Although a tad disproportionate, it's really the only way to be sure. But then not everyone would like to be the last person on Earth. I hear humans are supposed to live in groups. Most people even enjoy it, so they will endure that kind of low-level inconvenience. They also like to think they are nice and rational, so they will deem that kind of violence "unjustified". Or not worth it. Which is rationalizing the fact that they're not up to the inevitably ensuing trouble.
Violence is really not the issue. It has never been and never will be. Living with the consequences is.
Interesting question(s) and discussions, I hope someday there will be answers, but most likely those will be leads to more questions. I have two comments to add.
Number one, generally there can be no negotiations between adversaries (and yes, citizens and their governments have been adversaries for some time now) without the implied threat of violence. No negotiation, bargaining, disagreement or conflict was ever settled without the realization that violence could be applied by either party. Sure, compassionate but not anchored to the emotive, mature, intelligent adults can work out compromises and arrangements without violence, but how many in today's population would truly fit that description? The adolescent tantrums (of chronological adults) seen in today's online world are proof enough.
Secondly, I think the underlying and missed detail isn't that we are simply being forced to live as tax serfs, or as compliance automatons. The problem is the other end of that balance beam. The other end being the size, scope, breadth and ever-increasing power of modern day "governments". I think we can generally agree that we need some form of government to settle unresolved disputes and protect the innocent within its borders. I think most can agree that complete anarchy, every man for himself, to the victor goes the spoils type of MadMax society is obscene. But we have traded our liberty for implied government security. We've abdicated our rights and responsibilities of finance, family, child rearing, health care, diet, commerce (and many, many more categories) for the "feels" of bureaucratic mechanical faceless decision makers.
If we want to make our world better and avoid violence, it must start with reducing our dependency on government and a significant reduction in its authority over our everyday lives. Noncompliance and passive resistance is good, but without much additional work, it will only delay what the tyrant who is fed by his serfs has planned himself.
"But at exactly what target ought such ire, however morally justified, be directed? ... The cop with the wife and kids who comes to take you away for not paying your taxes? It's such a mess."
Lots of people have wives and kids, including people who worked at now-notorious places in a once-notorious nation in the middle of the 20th Century. Being an enforcer and "Just doing your job" or "Just following orders" does not absolve anyone from moral responsibility (actually the second example has a much better excuse, as failing to follow orders in the military can get you shot, whereas today's hired enforcers have many other options for how to live their lives).
A perhaps more unambiguous example than the cop coming to take you away for not paying taxes, is the cop who is coming to arrest you for consuming some drug the government doesn't like. Here at least, I would argue, the person targeted has every right to resist by whatever means prove necessary, and the cop(s) involved have no right to whine that they were just performing as ordered. An enforcer of tyranny is a participant in tyranny, no excuses.
Note that I'm not calling for storming police stations, only for practicing self-defense when the only other choice is submission to immediate unjust imprisonment or worse. A bit of resistance sends a powerful message.
We are guaranteed peace, safety and happiness. If you do not have it, I'm sure it is not available on any of the 32 states and 17 territories and the martial law from March 1861 has turned malevolent. It is not about peaceful. It is about due process and unalienable rights. When one decides that they will not acquiesce to evil. Then one must be prepared for the consequences. Very few are. Most people are persons of the de facto and write and complain and whine, cry and snivel a lot. Then they acquiesce again. 3% will take action and a few more when their ox is gored. The rest acquiesce to evil. When you do that you become evil.
you write like you do not comprehend the difference between de facto and de jure. Nor how a representative government is supposed to function.
Please read de facto Black's 6th edition page 416. De jure is covered there also. Possession by pirates doe not change ownership.
The system must be corrected. We did the entire job on Oregon. It took us 5 years, 1 step at a time without rebuttal. The paperwork can be completed in 30 days, Constitutionally. www.orsja.org
Love this overview. A timely reminder that the best moral course of action is to stop cooperating with the system, and the most pragmatic form of action would be to coordinate a mass of people to stop cooperating with the system. God knows we need a revolution and we're eventually going to get one, one way or another, so I pray it's a peaceful one.
This is a really good and important exploration, Christopher. Well done. I hope we will keep pushing this avenue of inquiry further till we get from the theoretical, to the strategic, to the tactical.
Eastern Europe chiming in here. 45 years of totalitarian communist rule. 34 years of fake democracy. Deterioration on all societal, economical, political, and cultural fronts. A nation that is not simply dead -- it's rotting. Every institution and every department of every single government we've had for the past ~80 years has served, in one way or another, Russian interests, while being infiltrated by and working with the country's own organized crime syndicate, itself a remnant of the old party elite. The cancer has spread so deeply and so completely, that violence is the only way here. Our closest neighbor, the one they compare us to about everything, is ahead of us in everything. The difference is that had their revolution and purge. We never did. The previous tyrants just changed colors.
You said "Mass non-compliance, walking away, opting out…I think more hope may lie there." but I don't see this as possible. To enlighten such a critical mass of the population so as to have them walk out, i.e. stop paying taxes or going to work seems idealist to me, to say the least -- people will never believe it. But buildings in flames? That's easy to rally around. So, yes -- I think violence is the only option sometimes and in some places of the world. I'd love to be proven wrong, but how will you have a peaceful revolution in China? It's simply impossible.
John Adams said the Revolution was in the mind first before the shots were fired. We need 51% part of the reason dark occultists like May 1. They are of one sound mind and ideology even if they have some differences on tactics. We need a critical mass to understand fully their God given rights and the fact that “authority” is a mental construct, a parasite of the mind. We aren’t even close to that. I think it can be done and I pledge my life to the cause but it will take a massive effort from so many of us. Once it is truly apparent in the mind, hearts and mouths of a mass people change can occur. The mouths will move to the arms appropriately if pursued.
Brazil became a totalitarian country in 2023, and there are no peaceful solutions to this problem.
How is violence defined, exactly? Would sanctions and blockades, which are acts of warfare, be considered violence? Is it an act of violence to be denied access to food, income, and other resources necessary for survival? Is arrest by police considered violence (I would say yes), even if you are arrested for letting your children play on a playground?
Many times, violence action is not actually taken, only threatened. Threatened violence, even if it is only implied and not explicit, tends to bring about compliance. Maybe we need to begin by just seeing if noncompliance results in actual violence that has been implied.
Love the article; love the graphic, as well. Do you have an image credit to share so I can contact the artist?
A more basic question would be: why should violence be "justified"?
This is not a rethorical question. Violence has a very pragmatic aim, which is usually: you win, the other loses. Unless I'm mistaken, violence is not a moral enterprise, although we hear a lot of rationalizing about it - especially in times of war.
To remain on a purely pragmactic mode: what is winning and what is losing, and is violence worth it? The few examples given in this article demonstrate that the PTB made sure it wasn't - at least towards them. It's easier to pay one's taxes and to walk the line, isn't it? But I'm not here to complain about the PTB. Given the enormity of the task, I hold the not very popular opinion that they're doing a pretty good job. Mainly.
The recurring theme in this article is freedom, and how violence should or shoudn't be used to defend it. Ok. Is there any more subjective a concept than freedom? I don't mean freedom from the State or authority, I mean pure unadulterated individual freedom. It is common knowledge that the freedom of some ends where that of others begins, so what do? Let me give you an example. I hate it when I hear someone whistle. It angers me to no end. But of course whistling is not outlawed anywhere in the world so I can't call the cops, can I? I may politely ask the whistler to stop, but it does not always work. I could be told to walk away or plug my ears but I might consider that an infringement on my own freedom - sure, we're in silly territory, but it all really pales in comparison to what is considered freedom nowadays. I could also never leave my house but I still have to go to work and do some occasional errands.
So would violence solve the problem? Let's see... If I punch someone for whistling, that might stop him but I might get in trouble with the law, which would be rather counterproductive wrt freedom. Let's just skip to the logical conclusion: the solution would be to kill all men, women and children on the planet. Although a tad disproportionate, it's really the only way to be sure. But then not everyone would like to be the last person on Earth. I hear humans are supposed to live in groups. Most people even enjoy it, so they will endure that kind of low-level inconvenience. They also like to think they are nice and rational, so they will deem that kind of violence "unjustified". Or not worth it. Which is rationalizing the fact that they're not up to the inevitably ensuing trouble.
Violence is really not the issue. It has never been and never will be. Living with the consequences is.
Interesting question(s) and discussions, I hope someday there will be answers, but most likely those will be leads to more questions. I have two comments to add.
Number one, generally there can be no negotiations between adversaries (and yes, citizens and their governments have been adversaries for some time now) without the implied threat of violence. No negotiation, bargaining, disagreement or conflict was ever settled without the realization that violence could be applied by either party. Sure, compassionate but not anchored to the emotive, mature, intelligent adults can work out compromises and arrangements without violence, but how many in today's population would truly fit that description? The adolescent tantrums (of chronological adults) seen in today's online world are proof enough.
Secondly, I think the underlying and missed detail isn't that we are simply being forced to live as tax serfs, or as compliance automatons. The problem is the other end of that balance beam. The other end being the size, scope, breadth and ever-increasing power of modern day "governments". I think we can generally agree that we need some form of government to settle unresolved disputes and protect the innocent within its borders. I think most can agree that complete anarchy, every man for himself, to the victor goes the spoils type of MadMax society is obscene. But we have traded our liberty for implied government security. We've abdicated our rights and responsibilities of finance, family, child rearing, health care, diet, commerce (and many, many more categories) for the "feels" of bureaucratic mechanical faceless decision makers.
If we want to make our world better and avoid violence, it must start with reducing our dependency on government and a significant reduction in its authority over our everyday lives. Noncompliance and passive resistance is good, but without much additional work, it will only delay what the tyrant who is fed by his serfs has planned himself.
"But at exactly what target ought such ire, however morally justified, be directed? ... The cop with the wife and kids who comes to take you away for not paying your taxes? It's such a mess."
Lots of people have wives and kids, including people who worked at now-notorious places in a once-notorious nation in the middle of the 20th Century. Being an enforcer and "Just doing your job" or "Just following orders" does not absolve anyone from moral responsibility (actually the second example has a much better excuse, as failing to follow orders in the military can get you shot, whereas today's hired enforcers have many other options for how to live their lives).
A perhaps more unambiguous example than the cop coming to take you away for not paying taxes, is the cop who is coming to arrest you for consuming some drug the government doesn't like. Here at least, I would argue, the person targeted has every right to resist by whatever means prove necessary, and the cop(s) involved have no right to whine that they were just performing as ordered. An enforcer of tyranny is a participant in tyranny, no excuses.
Note that I'm not calling for storming police stations, only for practicing self-defense when the only other choice is submission to immediate unjust imprisonment or worse. A bit of resistance sends a powerful message.
This one is simple - always and in as much measure as necessary to decisively defeat it.
Totalitarianism is inherently violent. Opinion is moot-point.
We are guaranteed peace, safety and happiness. If you do not have it, I'm sure it is not available on any of the 32 states and 17 territories and the martial law from March 1861 has turned malevolent. It is not about peaceful. It is about due process and unalienable rights. When one decides that they will not acquiesce to evil. Then one must be prepared for the consequences. Very few are. Most people are persons of the de facto and write and complain and whine, cry and snivel a lot. Then they acquiesce again. 3% will take action and a few more when their ox is gored. The rest acquiesce to evil. When you do that you become evil.
you write like you do not comprehend the difference between de facto and de jure. Nor how a representative government is supposed to function.
Please read de facto Black's 6th edition page 416. De jure is covered there also. Possession by pirates doe not change ownership.
The system must be corrected. We did the entire job on Oregon. It took us 5 years, 1 step at a time without rebuttal. The paperwork can be completed in 30 days, Constitutionally. www.orsja.org