While folks shouldn't have to, disavowing violence is commonplace for commentators on "the right", because of how frequently sting and honey pot operations have been, and still are, run by domestic government agencies to nudge people on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum into taking action without considering the consequences or context.
The agency sweeps in, claims credit for having stopped something that probably wouldn't have started without their involvement anyway, awards are handed out and people make empty speeches about "duty" and "diligence", and someone decides that the paychecks will continue being signed for at least a little while longer.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it as well: I do not condone the use of violence beyond what is legally permitted by your local Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, should they even exist, and it is your responsibility alone to understand your local legal limitations relating to the use of lethal force.
You have no legal standing to circumvent the existing "justice system", regardless of your opinion on how corrupt or broken it is, regardless of what you think someone else is "getting away with", because unless you're willing to throw away everything and start over from scratch, nothing you do will change anything anyway.
If you want to get familiar with the laws in your state or area, there are many websites which will help summarize the laws in your state, provide references to the relevant laws, and so forth. If someone is attacking you with lethal force, obviously the nature of what laws apply will change, but frankly most people ruminating about vigilantism are not actively being attacked, and are instead planning an act of aggression as a means of retaliation. There are no laws which permit that type of activity.
Now, the reason I say that nothing you do will change anything anyway is that the mythos of the Sheriff from the Wild West is one that resonates with a lot of patriots. The ideal that one man with a gun can make a difference is alluring, but almost entirely unrealistic at the same time. We enjoy imagining the moral struggle of the lawman, having to walk a fine line between upholding order and being willing to embrace chaos and questionable actions in order to do so.
The problem is that the dynamics of dysfunction that we are experiencing today don't show up in any of those mythos. The reason the Sheriff held so much power is because there was nobody else that he had to compete with for jurisdiction. There was nobody else who had the ability to bring circumstances to a conclusion. In a frontier town, or even just on a town on the way to the frontier, there was no overreaching power that reported to Washington D.C., unless they sent someone out, and then they were still limited by what they could carry or get brought along with them.
In the modern world, the centralized federal government has so many more resources on tap to achieve whatever means they desire that the local "lawman" can very quickly be outpaced, outgunned, and outmaneuvered by a centralized government that has amassed power unto itself. This extends beyond just literal law enforcement at the criminal level as well. People can be tried in the court of law and executed without a single bullet fired through the use of manipulation and selective media reporting. Government organizations superficially meant to "help" citizens have the authority to interfere with aspects of your personal life, and they can do unconstitutional things and nobody appears to care because, thanks in large part to the 19th Amendment, safety is now a priority over freedom and sovereignty.
Acts of violence at the local level no longer change the course of local politics, because local politics are no longer driven as a response to local actions in the first place, but instead are a drip-feed of things happening at the national level. This disconnect is part of the inertia of past decisions and consequences which cannot be changed overnight. We can't change who was allowed to vote, who was allowed to enter or stay in the country, what laws were passed or amendments ratified, we can't change the past and the consequences that come from the choices that led us to the circumstances we now experience.
Vigilantism then is not a solution to the real problem of this disconnect. Taking actions locally won't change the local politics, but instead feeds into a feedback loop at the national level where every solution that works in one portion of the country is copy/pasted to the others as a means of creating national unity in word and deed. If you perform a violent act of aggression at the local level, the first reactions will come from the national level, an then feed down. Violence doesn't change the direction that political priorities flow, so anyone tempted to partake in it is largely deceiving themselves in the same way that liberals do when they pontificate about socialism.
The only way that violence returns to being a viable solution is if the national level of politics is completely cut off from the local. Examples of this would include Civil War, natural disasters, invasion of a foreign military, or you being attacked by someone with violence. In each case, the dynamic of politics doesn't matter anymore, not because the dynamic has been eliminated, but because the "problem" is quite literally local.
Only local problems can be resolved by local action, and the decay of the United States is not occurring because of local problems. Attempting to overthrow the existing political dynamic, regardless of your intent or desires, is treason. It doesn't matter if you're a religious ancap or atheistic commie, no matter how you believe yourself to be morally justified, you're seeking to overthrow the government.
You may not believe this is what you're doing with vigilantism, but what you believe doesn't matter. The only way to "fix" the system without breaking it or undermining it must then come from the source of the problem, at the national level, and none of those issues can be fixed with vigilantism.
Immigration diluting the former cultural cohesion in the United States cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
Legislation consolidating power at the federal instead of local level cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
Lobbying having a greater influence on legislative priorities than the opinions and concerns of local populations cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
In short, for the same criticisms that are levied at gun control advocates who want a "feel good" response that doesn't actually do anything meaningful, so likewise would any call for vigilantism be a "feel good" response that doesn't actually do anything meaningful. Playing whack-a-mole on your local crazies and criminals only invites the entire weight of a political system, which has no qualms about crushing individuals or people groups or even entire cultures in its bid to continuously consolidate power, to bear down upon you. It is not bravery or patriotism that inspires such audacity, but suicidal stupidity and inexcusable ignorance.
All of that said, this does not mean you should not be capable of defending your family and your neighborhood when local problems do arise that require a local solution. It simply means you can't proactively resolve national problems through local actions of violence, and that's been true for more than a century.
Certainly, if someone is trying to kill you, there is no legal requirement that you let them get away with it, but even there you have to be smart enough to know how to respond in a way that doesn't end up still hurting you more than those who are trying to do you harm.
Until the current dynamic changes, trying to take the law "into your own hands" will simply result in those hands being chained up.
Unfortunately, while there are ways that the system could be fixed internally, intentionally, this would require a level of resolve and clarity and boldness which has been entirely lacking for many generations. Humans are efficient creatures, and rarely waste energy on developing skills and capacity which aren't required of them, so it's not a surprise that we've "gone soft". What that means then is that, for the majority of people, it won't be till an external circumstance demands more of them that they'll ever rise to meet such a challenge, and many only discover far too late that they can't.
Politically, this means that things will have to become dire and critical before anything is done. Like a fat person who can't seem to start dieting until the doctor gives them so many years to live unless they radically change their habits, so the mortality of our nation will be in full view before folks stop pretending that someone or something will come along to cleanly and easily resolve all of our issues so that we can fall back into a hedonistic malaise.
Strive to rise above the minimal demands of today to meet the higher demands that will come, but do not "jump the gun" and pretend that those demands are already here, or that acting as if those demands are already here will hasten them along or somehow speed up their resolution. Don't fall for the trap of the "easy fix", the "get-civilizational stability quick" schemes, but instead put in the hard work and make the necessary sacrifices in your current pleasure and enjoyment to ensure that you will be better prepared to survive what is coming.
Be the person who decides to eat right and exercise before liposuction and bypass surgery are required, let alone a possibility, and don't ever choose to put yourself in a place where desperation is the only thing that can drive you towards improvement.
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
29.10.18
When war has been declared, act like it.
Last week there were fake bombs used in a false flag to drum up support for Democrats just prior to the mid-term elections.
These devices were identified as fake rather quickly because they were illogically constructed, folks took pictures for social media before calling in the bomb squads, and these devices could not actually harmed the "intended targets" because those people never actually open their own mail. This is the equivalent of a gun whose only function is to extend a flag with the word "boom" on it. Even so, the event was touted as further evidence that the current President needs to do things differently.
So what happens when the scare isn't fake?
Most false flags aren't fakes at all.
Here's a list of 42 known false flag operations.
Look at the list. People died. Governments, both "good" and "bad" guys in the historical narratives, are present and accounted for.
In almost every case, the acts were done to provide a "moral high ground" for an aggressor to have their subsequent actions justified. If you've just been attacked by someone, then who is going to interfere with your actions to defend yourself? They'd be allying themselves with those who just attacked you!
Look at how frequently a simplistic mindset shows up in the justifications. Look at how frequently personal reasons are used as the cover for political ones.
"We did something we knew was wrong and then were going to blame someone else for it because we couldn't otherwise justify doing what we wanted to in the first place."
Even scripture has a fairly well known story about this, when Joseph accused his brothers of stealing and imprisoned the youngest, who was found with "stolen goods", when Joseph had actually planted the "stolen" goods.
The reason these types of manipulation work is because we are not primarily rational creatures, so when an offense has occurred, our instinct is not to investigate and discern what needs to be done, but to react. Our instinct is to right the wrongs and settle things, and the "false flag" hopes to evoke such an emotional response that nobody takes a closer look at the circumstance to determine what the correct course of action should be.
The name itself is a literal one, from the time when ships on the sea would run the wrong flags to confuse and disorient other ships.
After the fake bomb scare, someone shot up a Jewish synagogue, and there are 8 dead and more injured.
Now, why am I framing that shooting alongside false flags?
Look at one of the responses to the shooting.
Does this sound personally motivated or politically motivated? Put differently, were they specifically targeted, or were political groups they belong to, or are aligned with, targeted?
As before, how often did known false flags have predominantly political implications?
Is their goal to get justice for a specific incident, or to affect a more sweeping change that goes beyond the incident?
Let's divert the train of thought for a bit. I've shared this video before. If you have not watched this video, you need to before you can understand what is going on in this country. You need to understand all the possibilities before you can be sure and take any action, because if you think that how a person behaves in their day-to-day describes the entirety of their capacity, you are woefully ignorant.
Also, in case you didn't read it, Israel showed up on that list.
In a population of an estimated 325.98 million, or 325,980,000 let's presume that, based on Derren Brown's experiment, only a very small portion of a percentage of the population is susceptible to such programming, but those that are will do nearly anything you've programmed them to do, including kill people when your "normal" personality is quite the antithesis of violent or aggressive.
If it's .0001% of the population, that still puts us at about 325 people, 6 per state, if you spread them out. If it's .001% of the population, that is 3250 people, 60 per state, and so on and so forth.
Even seemingly tiny odds amidst a big enough population exposes that we are living in a rather volatile time where peace and civility are more of a coincidence than a result of any intentional effort.
So, how many people are usually involved in a "mass shooting" in the USA? Is it more or less than 6? More or less than 60? Are there enough people that an entire "movement" could be faked to support their own narratives?
When the fake bomb scare apparently failed to move the needle, in that even within 24 hours it was apparent that the reaction desired did not occur, what do you think would happen next if folks believe that the political changes they desire are so important to start running false flags? To try to go beyond merely making new policies available to choose and moving to the extent of trying to persuade and manipulate the mob in order to achieve their goals?
They would escalate. Just look at what happened with women's suffrage in the UK over a hundred years ago:
When any political group ever desires more power, they will follow a very specific path of escalation when they don't get what they want, until the cost of continuing is beyond what they can afford to pay. This is why parents will often start taking away existing toys of a child throwing a tantrum because they can't get a new one, because they are increasing the cost of continuing behavior on the child to then change the motivations of the child.
Does anyone still wonder why positive reinforcement alone fails to raise children into mature adults?
As Clausewitz said "War is a mere continuation of policy by other means."
Realize that if it's important enough to escalate at all, and they can "afford it", then they will, and they have hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the country on tap who could commit terrible acts that are completely outside their normal character, and that presumes the need for those folks in the first place because they cannot draw from within their own political groups to achieve a goal.
Folks will presume that their victory will surely be just around the next corner. And then the next. And then the next. They just need to try a little bit harder and then everything will fall into place, and just as their efforts grow, so will the animosity for those who, even by appearance alone, stand against them. They've put in so much work so far, it's not that much more. They've put in so much work so far, it would be such a tragedy to see it all go to waste!
A false flag is a means to try and justify further actions being taken which would otherwise be completely inappropriate without the context of "responding to a hostile aggressor". It's for when folks want to take action but don't want the optics of it to be against them.
It's something people do when they've already contemplated doing more but cannot yet justify it.
Yet.
So immediately following the fake bomb scare, a Jewish synagogue gets shot up, and various political groups immediately start making political demands of the President?
We're supposed to believe that an apparently maligned and victimized political group can now make these demands because of this shooting, and past events, and these demands are made before all the details of the investigation have taken place?
We're in a cold civil war, which is only being recognized and acted on at all by one "side" of the conflict. And that "side" doesn't have much power in our current administration.
So how far are they willing to go to change that? They're the only ones that truly know, and the administration has done everything they can to try and defuse the situation.
They'll only end up making it worse. Like Icarus on wings of wax, the higher we fly the farther we fall as a consequence of our hubris.
I'd prefer a negotiated split over no negotiations and "to the victor goes the spoils".
These devices were identified as fake rather quickly because they were illogically constructed, folks took pictures for social media before calling in the bomb squads, and these devices could not actually harmed the "intended targets" because those people never actually open their own mail. This is the equivalent of a gun whose only function is to extend a flag with the word "boom" on it. Even so, the event was touted as further evidence that the current President needs to do things differently.
So what happens when the scare isn't fake?
Most false flags aren't fakes at all.
Here's a list of 42 known false flag operations.
Look at the list. People died. Governments, both "good" and "bad" guys in the historical narratives, are present and accounted for.
In almost every case, the acts were done to provide a "moral high ground" for an aggressor to have their subsequent actions justified. If you've just been attacked by someone, then who is going to interfere with your actions to defend yourself? They'd be allying themselves with those who just attacked you!
Look at how frequently a simplistic mindset shows up in the justifications. Look at how frequently personal reasons are used as the cover for political ones.
"We did something we knew was wrong and then were going to blame someone else for it because we couldn't otherwise justify doing what we wanted to in the first place."
Even scripture has a fairly well known story about this, when Joseph accused his brothers of stealing and imprisoned the youngest, who was found with "stolen goods", when Joseph had actually planted the "stolen" goods.
The reason these types of manipulation work is because we are not primarily rational creatures, so when an offense has occurred, our instinct is not to investigate and discern what needs to be done, but to react. Our instinct is to right the wrongs and settle things, and the "false flag" hopes to evoke such an emotional response that nobody takes a closer look at the circumstance to determine what the correct course of action should be.
The name itself is a literal one, from the time when ships on the sea would run the wrong flags to confuse and disorient other ships.
After the fake bomb scare, someone shot up a Jewish synagogue, and there are 8 dead and more injured.
Now, why am I framing that shooting alongside false flags?
Look at one of the responses to the shooting.
“Our Jewish community is not the only group you have targeted,” the group wrote. “You have also deliberately undermined the safety of people of color, Muslims, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities. Yesterday’s massacre is not the first act of terror you incited against a minority group in our country.”
Trump was fiercely criticized after he failed to condemn white supremacy and asserted that there is “blame on both sides” after last year’s deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.
The group said Trump is not welcome in the city until he also stops targeting minorities, immigrants and refugees.
Does this sound personally motivated or politically motivated? Put differently, were they specifically targeted, or were political groups they belong to, or are aligned with, targeted?
As before, how often did known false flags have predominantly political implications?
Is their goal to get justice for a specific incident, or to affect a more sweeping change that goes beyond the incident?
Let's divert the train of thought for a bit. I've shared this video before. If you have not watched this video, you need to before you can understand what is going on in this country. You need to understand all the possibilities before you can be sure and take any action, because if you think that how a person behaves in their day-to-day describes the entirety of their capacity, you are woefully ignorant.
Also, in case you didn't read it, Israel showed up on that list.
So, let's do some simple math.
Israel was at war with Egypt when it hatched a plan in 1954 to ruin its rapprochement with the United States and Britain by firebombing sites frequented by foreigners in Cairo and Alexandria.
But Israeli hopes the attacks, which caused no casualties, would be blamed on local insurgents collapsed when the young Zionist bombers were caught and confessed at public trials. Two were hanged. The rest served jail terms and emigrated to Israel.
In a population of an estimated 325.98 million, or 325,980,000 let's presume that, based on Derren Brown's experiment, only a very small portion of a percentage of the population is susceptible to such programming, but those that are will do nearly anything you've programmed them to do, including kill people when your "normal" personality is quite the antithesis of violent or aggressive.
If it's .0001% of the population, that still puts us at about 325 people, 6 per state, if you spread them out. If it's .001% of the population, that is 3250 people, 60 per state, and so on and so forth.
Even seemingly tiny odds amidst a big enough population exposes that we are living in a rather volatile time where peace and civility are more of a coincidence than a result of any intentional effort.
So, how many people are usually involved in a "mass shooting" in the USA? Is it more or less than 6? More or less than 60? Are there enough people that an entire "movement" could be faked to support their own narratives?
When the fake bomb scare apparently failed to move the needle, in that even within 24 hours it was apparent that the reaction desired did not occur, what do you think would happen next if folks believe that the political changes they desire are so important to start running false flags? To try to go beyond merely making new policies available to choose and moving to the extent of trying to persuade and manipulate the mob in order to achieve their goals?
They would escalate. Just look at what happened with women's suffrage in the UK over a hundred years ago:
In 1913 some Suffragettes began to resort to the tactic of small bombs. In February 1913 Lloyd George's week-end cottage which was in the process of being built, was target of a small explosion, and in June 1914 a bomb was placed beside the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey. It exploded causing slight damage to the chair and the 'Stone of Destiny' below it. Several other bombs planted including one in St Paul's Cathedral, and near the Bank of England.
When any political group ever desires more power, they will follow a very specific path of escalation when they don't get what they want, until the cost of continuing is beyond what they can afford to pay. This is why parents will often start taking away existing toys of a child throwing a tantrum because they can't get a new one, because they are increasing the cost of continuing behavior on the child to then change the motivations of the child.
Does anyone still wonder why positive reinforcement alone fails to raise children into mature adults?
As Clausewitz said "War is a mere continuation of policy by other means."
Realize that if it's important enough to escalate at all, and they can "afford it", then they will, and they have hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the country on tap who could commit terrible acts that are completely outside their normal character, and that presumes the need for those folks in the first place because they cannot draw from within their own political groups to achieve a goal.
Folks will presume that their victory will surely be just around the next corner. And then the next. And then the next. They just need to try a little bit harder and then everything will fall into place, and just as their efforts grow, so will the animosity for those who, even by appearance alone, stand against them. They've put in so much work so far, it's not that much more. They've put in so much work so far, it would be such a tragedy to see it all go to waste!
A false flag is a means to try and justify further actions being taken which would otherwise be completely inappropriate without the context of "responding to a hostile aggressor". It's for when folks want to take action but don't want the optics of it to be against them.
It's something people do when they've already contemplated doing more but cannot yet justify it.
Yet.
So immediately following the fake bomb scare, a Jewish synagogue gets shot up, and various political groups immediately start making political demands of the President?
We're supposed to believe that an apparently maligned and victimized political group can now make these demands because of this shooting, and past events, and these demands are made before all the details of the investigation have taken place?
We're in a cold civil war, which is only being recognized and acted on at all by one "side" of the conflict. And that "side" doesn't have much power in our current administration.
So how far are they willing to go to change that? They're the only ones that truly know, and the administration has done everything they can to try and defuse the situation.
They'll only end up making it worse. Like Icarus on wings of wax, the higher we fly the farther we fall as a consequence of our hubris.
I'd prefer a negotiated split over no negotiations and "to the victor goes the spoils".
2.5.18
Daily Bible Study: Proverbs 10:11
The mouth of the righteous is a well of life,
But violence covers the mouth of the wicked.
Proverbs 10:11 (NKJV).
How many people have ever died for an ideal? Sacrificed their own lives in pursuit of some goal, some state of being?
Now, how many people have died for someone else's ideal? Sacrificed their own lives in pursuit of someone else's goal, someone else's state of being?
The contrast here is highlighted by Jesus Christ, who died for the sake of humanity, for the ideal of God to reconcile us in a way which we could never possibly do on our own.
The rest of us?
We only aspire to such sacrifices, or at least, we do so publicly. We want the social credit of being so loving, but without actually making the sacrifices that make such a response justified.
The wicked sell all sorts of paths to salvation. Get rich quick, get revenge on someone who wronged you, enjoy yourself and then skip out on the bills. Deny God and live in sin and resist the calling of the Holy Spirit in your heart, the true and only unforgivable sin.
In each case the sinner is taking action, and the actions are destructive. Adultery, fornication, murder, theft, all of them acts of aggression, justified in various ways, but all different types of violence.
In the original language, here are the various ways that the word "covers" is translated throughout the Bible in the NASB:
closed (2), clothed (1), conceal (1), conceals (8), cover (50), covered (51), covering (4), covers (20), engulfed (3), forgive (1), hidden (1), hide (2), keep (1), made a covering (1), overwhelm (2), overwhelmed (2), take refuge (1).
Notice the connotation, and apply it back to the passage. "Actions speak louder than words".
Where the wise speak and their words bring life, the wicked are silenced by their own actions.
Who cares about the "equality" in economic and social status if it requires the death of millions to sustain it?
Who cares about the "freedom" from parental burdens if it requires the murder of the unborn to attain it?
The wicked are quick with the tongue, but their feet and hands are quicker, and they sow only destruction in their path, hating all that is "good", all that is "wise", not being content to leave well enough alone and pursue their own ends, they must also seek validation from others to compensate for the nagging realization that they are terribly wrong and terribly damned and nothing they do can change that.
The immoral woman, referenced earlier in Proverbs, lured ignorant men in with empty flattery and wordplay like "honey". Desirable, lofty, something that one would want.
But to achieve such ends requires violence. It requires hostile, action be taken, and in due time no amount of empty rhetoric can distract from the natural consequences of those actions.
Be wary of the wicked, and in keeping company with them, for you cannot protect yourself from them with the same empty words that they use, but through the capacity for and strength to resist the violence they would seek to bring upon you to suit their ends.
While we can dream of being so strong, in the end only God is infinite in this regard, which is why it took an act of God to provide a path of reconciliation, and it's only by acts of God that our hard hearts are softened to understand truth.
Do not resist the work of God, and do not look away from the violence caused by the wicked. Understand where it comes from and why, and flee from those who do evil in the name of doing good.
But violence covers the mouth of the wicked.
Proverbs 10:11 (NKJV).
How many people have ever died for an ideal? Sacrificed their own lives in pursuit of some goal, some state of being?
Now, how many people have died for someone else's ideal? Sacrificed their own lives in pursuit of someone else's goal, someone else's state of being?
The contrast here is highlighted by Jesus Christ, who died for the sake of humanity, for the ideal of God to reconcile us in a way which we could never possibly do on our own.
The rest of us?
We only aspire to such sacrifices, or at least, we do so publicly. We want the social credit of being so loving, but without actually making the sacrifices that make such a response justified.
The wicked sell all sorts of paths to salvation. Get rich quick, get revenge on someone who wronged you, enjoy yourself and then skip out on the bills. Deny God and live in sin and resist the calling of the Holy Spirit in your heart, the true and only unforgivable sin.
In each case the sinner is taking action, and the actions are destructive. Adultery, fornication, murder, theft, all of them acts of aggression, justified in various ways, but all different types of violence.
In the original language, here are the various ways that the word "covers" is translated throughout the Bible in the NASB:
closed (2), clothed (1), conceal (1), conceals (8), cover (50), covered (51), covering (4), covers (20), engulfed (3), forgive (1), hidden (1), hide (2), keep (1), made a covering (1), overwhelm (2), overwhelmed (2), take refuge (1).
Notice the connotation, and apply it back to the passage. "Actions speak louder than words".
Where the wise speak and their words bring life, the wicked are silenced by their own actions.
Who cares about the "equality" in economic and social status if it requires the death of millions to sustain it?
Who cares about the "freedom" from parental burdens if it requires the murder of the unborn to attain it?
The wicked are quick with the tongue, but their feet and hands are quicker, and they sow only destruction in their path, hating all that is "good", all that is "wise", not being content to leave well enough alone and pursue their own ends, they must also seek validation from others to compensate for the nagging realization that they are terribly wrong and terribly damned and nothing they do can change that.
The immoral woman, referenced earlier in Proverbs, lured ignorant men in with empty flattery and wordplay like "honey". Desirable, lofty, something that one would want.
But to achieve such ends requires violence. It requires hostile, action be taken, and in due time no amount of empty rhetoric can distract from the natural consequences of those actions.
Be wary of the wicked, and in keeping company with them, for you cannot protect yourself from them with the same empty words that they use, but through the capacity for and strength to resist the violence they would seek to bring upon you to suit their ends.
While we can dream of being so strong, in the end only God is infinite in this regard, which is why it took an act of God to provide a path of reconciliation, and it's only by acts of God that our hard hearts are softened to understand truth.
Do not resist the work of God, and do not look away from the violence caused by the wicked. Understand where it comes from and why, and flee from those who do evil in the name of doing good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)