Press "Enter" to skip to content

First question: Peaceful rollback of tyranny?

Thanks for all the input on the “five questions on the state of freedom” project. I’ll be laying low this week (though I will be checking in to approve comments that slip into the moderation queue). So here you go, Commentariat: solve the problems of the world. 😉

First question: Now that tyranny and its accompanying economic destruction have come so far, do you believe that there is likely to be any peaceful solution for restoring freedom? If so, what solutions do you envision? And specifically how do you see them working?

I’m talking about political freedom here — not our plans to establish beachheads of personal freedom despite the b*st*rds, but the bigger picture.


  1. Sam
    Sam March 4, 2013 3:49 am

    No. There would have to be some kind of massive catalyst. ‘Massive catalyst’ does not sound very peaceful to me. Hmmmm not very cheery. Well maybe it will cheer you up to know I think/hope that you are the hot model babe on Freedom Outlaws FB page!

  2. Dave
    Dave March 4, 2013 4:16 am

    I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there will be any substantive improvement until the whole thing falls apart. There are simply too many people, rich and poor, reliant on government intervention for their protection and/or livelihood.

  3. water lily
    water lily March 4, 2013 4:20 am

    No peaceful solution, unfortunately.

  4. Kevin3%
    Kevin3% March 4, 2013 4:26 am

    I would never presume to have wisdom enough to “solve the problems of the world”, but I will concur with Sam above.

    In the words of the acerbic, Billy Beck: “We will not vote our way out of this.” Actually, I believe the “revolution” has all ready begun….it just hasn’t gone hot yet. More and more people are awakening to the reality that the political process has failed. Just look at the stats for the number of background checks in the past several months. These folks are not buying guns to turn them in later!

    Not to beat a dead horse but, take the ATF as a shining example of the state’s refusal to change, to remove the bad actors, to realign with the consent of the governed. In the aftermath of Waco, the ATF did not suffer a downsize and no one was held accountable. In fact, they received a larger budget, more tools with which to oppress and they even got another letter of the alphabet attached to their acronym. In addition, in the wake of September 11, 2001, which was in my opinion an example of complete failure of the state to “protect” us. More alphabet soup gangs were created, the existing gangs received even larger budgets (where is that money tree they seem to picking dollars off to achieve the never ending growth of government?) and they have turned their focus inward toward the American people. Our every move is monitored and recorded. Your financial transactions, your travel, your telephone and internet queries and conversations are all probed by big gov. This is made all the more easy with the willing help of big corporations with whom the state is in bed.

    Not to be a total buzz kill. I have to hope/believe that liberty will never perish. That light which lives in the hearts and minds of men and women can not be extinguished. It may flicker. It may even get a heavy dose of water poured on it and especially here in the land of my birth it may dim so low that we may not see it for a time. Liberty is alive and well somewhere. Look at Ai WeiWei in Beijing. He is a freedom fighter in a place that many of us would consider impossible to find liberty. A quote from him that I love: “There is not outdoor sport greater than throwing stones at a dictatorship.” Wow! They guy has big balls. he has also said and I am not sure this was an original or if he is paraphrasing one of this nation’s Founders, “For each person to earnestly cherish their rights is the essence of civil society.” He seems to understand what many in America have grown indifferent to. In other words, there is some hope for turning away tyranny.

    My bet is there will be some false flag, economic meltdown or egregious over-reach that sets the wheels in motion. Hold on kids! This is going to be a rough ride.

  5. Pat
    Pat March 4, 2013 5:13 am

    No. As others have said – no peaceful solution.

    It would take a philosphical turnaround from politicians in this country for any peaceful solution to take place. That won’t happen. They and their minions are arming themselves with more laws, and physically with weapons, to take over our lives. The populace in turn is starting to wake up and arming itself to push back.

    It would take a rescinding of all Executive Orders; a removal of bureaucratic and corporate influence at all political levels; a return of law-making solely to Congress; closing of the Federal Reserve; removing the military influence from America’s streets; and stopping the War on Drugs — to even BEGIN to get this country back to a manageable level for finding a solution. That won’t happen either.

  6. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 4, 2013 5:24 am

    Peaceful does seem impossible at this point.

    I wonder if that is how the Soviet people felt?

    Or was the Soviet collapse just a show?

    “… no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos.” …

    Society Without a State

  7. Terry
    Terry March 4, 2013 5:24 am

    I’ll go with ‘possible, yes, likely, no.’

    A peaceful turnabout would have to begin with such a disastrous financial situation that the federal government would collapse too fast for repercussions against the general population (such as TPTB fleeing to their personal retreats, leaving behind only those willing to stand and rebuild).

    Those left in DC (or wherever they choose to take their stand) would have to declare a general debt jubilee/default and present (pretty damn quickly) an agenda for moving forward responsibly.

    As I said, possible but not likely.

  8. puptent
    puptent March 4, 2013 5:34 am

    I can’t blame the careerist politicians because the voters bought the products they are selling. Until freedom and liberty are more attractive than security and safety this is what we’re going to get. The progressives have been working on getting us to this point for at least 100 years, don’t expect the masses to wake up now. Look around you at the “new” reality that’s been coming for decades; and show me the shocked face. The National Socialists OWN public education, they OWN the mass media, and they OWN the trough at which the public feeds. They have succeeded in convincing enough voters that the public good DEPENDS on the Government, that ONLY the Government can solve the problems that it, itself, constructs. Enough people have been convinced that success is bad, that rich is evil, that independent is suspect that we can never go back to the founding principles. Sure, maybe a voting public can return to freedom and liberty, but not in our life times, or maybe even our grandchildren’s. The riots over diminished Government services and entitlements in the struggling EU countries are a preview of what we can expect here. Even armed resistance to tyranny will go against the public will because it threatens the life they’ve voted for themselves. The only thing Romney got wrong with his 47 percent comment was that he could have as easily said 53 percent. People simply are not going to select for more personal responsibility when they can select for security. We lost.

  9. Jack Veggie
    Jack Veggie March 4, 2013 5:56 am

    Down here in South Texas, the corrupting influence of power may be a preview of the “post-entitlement age ” of the former united states. The number of corrupt conztables, cops, sherriffs, judges, lawyers and prosec utors has filled the judicial system to capacity. The beast of government is stalling from the attention it must pay to its own parasites. Like a dog engrossed in the torments of a flea-bitten arse, the local, state, and fed rackateers are not able to torment others to the degree they imagined. And the population is taking note of the flea problem. USSR redux. Tyranny may consume itself sooner than we thought.

  10. Pat
    Pat March 4, 2013 6:08 am

    To propose a few solutions in a dream world:

    1) Legal:
    -Do away with the Supreme Court, and use an arbitration system at the highest level.
    -Only three appeals can be made; when two appeals agree, that is the final verdict.
    -No civil trials for criminal cases; a crime is a crime and should be handled as such.
    -Restitution to be made only to the defendant, family or legal custodian, NOT to society.

    2) Economic:
    -Return to the gold standard.
    -Eliminate taxes, the IRS, and the welfare system.

    3) Military/Diplomatic:
    -No standing army.
    -Bring home all military personnel, supplies, and consultants from every country.
    -No interference in internal affairs of any country. As Jefferson said, “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.”
    -Eliminate ‘National Guard’, establish a state guard – called [state name] Militia – and only answerable to the State where it resides. That State supplies whatever it wishes to each member of its Militia.

    While I’m dreaming, please add your own ideas. I’ve got to run some errands now.

  11. ILTim
    ILTim March 4, 2013 6:21 am

    As in my comment on the previous post, I think the feeling of cowering from ‘The Man’, man, is getting more prevalent. Its more talked about, I think, how the risks of running afoul of some pedantic tax rule will expose you to bigger dangers or bankruptcy. How a trivial traffic infraction can lead to a carefully staged assault whereby you are charged with any number of crimes. Where photographing on vacation on the streets of a city will get you arrested, illegally, and often processed thru and thru as a criminal because you don’t know better or don’t have the chutzpuh to fight it.

    But still, there will need to be a ‘Massive catalyst’ for this to change in any appreciable way, and no, that won’t be peaceful.

    On the other hand, it could recede. Its receded in the past, back to a slow boil that can be ignored. In which case it will flare up again in a decade or three.

    Which way will it go….

  12. Bill St. Clair
    Bill St. Clair March 4, 2013 6:25 am

    Millions will die. Wish it weren’t so.

  13. ILTim
    ILTim March 4, 2013 6:28 am

    Well, I also think the old phrase “Follow the money” applies. The recession of aggressive authority could follow a receding of funding. It takes money to feed this beast, and a proper financial collapse could chop the roots right off and let the fruit of tyranny wither on the vine for all to see.

    I’ve said it before, a very small slight change could fix everything. No direct contact permitted between the federal apparatus and US citizens. No direct taxation. No direct arrest or trial. All matters go thru the states. States pay tax to the fed, states enforce and prosecute federal crimes, or not as many are currently grumbling. We need a more diffuse and distributed system, and that will happen if you “follow the money”.

  14. Bear
    Bear March 4, 2013 6:29 am


    Nor do I think there’s a semi-rational chance of a non-peaceful solution (I’ve been into that in detail already; no need to waste more of Claire/BHM’s bandwidth).

  15. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty March 4, 2013 7:00 am

    No. Different people in different places may find a variety of answers to this dilemma over a long period of time, but the bottom line will not likely be peaceful change to universal liberty. Too many people with a vested interest in tyranny and the totally imaginary “benefit” of security and safety the tyrants promise.

    Far as I can tell, the Soviets didn’t change philosophy or methods all that much, just the brand name. People who want to live free there still do so in spite of the ongoing government controls, not because tyranny was tamed.

  16. Matt, another
    Matt, another March 4, 2013 7:16 am

    Got to go with no. DHS just purchased 2,700 MRAP, armored vehicles of the type lately used in Iraq and Afghanistan. That does not suggest peaceful resolution of anything. It would also suggest they do not consider the U.S. Military as a reliable partner in opression.

  17. glenn allen
    glenn allen March 4, 2013 7:22 am


  18. Jake MacGregor
    Jake MacGregor March 4, 2013 8:01 am

    No. This seems to be ‘mankind’s’ ‘groundhog day.’

    Barbara Tuchman does an excellent job in “A Distant Mirror” of illustrating our return to the ‘mean’

  19. Mic
    Mic March 4, 2013 8:06 am

    No, I believe it is impossible at this point. I believe we are headed to an outright civil war at some point. I wish it could be avoided, but I don’t think it will. There are simply too many people that want their ladle full of government gravy. Well, that gravy comes with a double helping of tyranny as government continues to grow bigger and bigger.

    Since neither party at the control panel in D.C. seem interested in rolling any of this crap back I say it will just keep growing and becoming more oppressive by the day until a snap occurs and civil war breaks out against the group that keeps getting their liberties infringed on.

  20. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 4, 2013 8:28 am

    Hey, Pat.
    In the first part of your deam it seems private justice might be preferable.
    Many people do it already. Historically it’s been shown to work.

    I read somewhere that Christians are supposed to go before their congregations and present matters there before going to court. I wonder if there are any Christians who do this?

    I wonder if there is a process the Crips or Bloods use to untangle inner disputes of the kind that do not merit the stereo-typical response?

    Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice:

    “Think about it. If you steal my chicken or I steal your cow, this is a dispute between us; what does the government care about it? The answer should be it doesn’t care at all but because the state loves power and the state does not like to share power, it likes to resolve all disputes the way it wants to resolve them. This drives up the cost and diminishes justice because it forces the disputants to follow the state’s rule and the state’s command and the state’s way, and this does not inure to politeness, civility or even the idea that a dispute could possibly be resolved amicably and justly, without the state being involved.

    The state is not an instrument of justice; it’s an instrument of power. It holds itself out as an instrument of justice, and many of my former colleagues on the bench still believe it is an instrument of justice and jurors believe it’s an instrument of justice and trial courts believe they are instruments of justice, but basically they are wrong; they are instruments of power – the state’s power, the way the state wants it exercised.” …

  21. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal March 4, 2013 8:45 am

    “Society” as a whole, no. Individuals, maybe.

    Withdraw consent. Stop propping up those who claim to have “authority” in your area. Stop worrying about whether you are obeying “laws” or not- only concern yourself with not getting caught (and realize that everything you do is probably “illegal” so there is no point in altering your life other than not letting people see you living it). Accept that anyone who works for “government” is a bad guy who will harm you if he gets the chance and feels the urge. Laugh at those who wear the silly hat of government. Ridicule them even to those who support them. Because, let’s face it: they really are absurd.

    It may not “roll back” tyranny, but it can de-fang it to a large extent. At least in your own life.

  22. Jim B.
    Jim B. March 4, 2013 9:01 am

    I’m reminded a bit about a recent article that compared statements that turned out to be the opposite of their actions.

    Nixon: “I am not a Crook”
    Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman”
    Obama: “I am not a Dictator”

    I believe that for Obama to say that, is the height of Stupidity. You can cure ignorance but you can’t cure stupidity. Too many are invested with the benefits and powers that come with a tyrannical government.

    The only way that could be peaceful would be if the people went through a catalyst, like someone above mentioned, but I don’t think there’s anything that can be done at this stage. We’re not like the people of the country that had that Singing Revolution, we’re too diverse and that revolution didn’t really change anything as far as their government is concerned.

    Smarter men than me have already considered this before. I think Jefferson said it best: “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike!”

    Like your famous quote, Claire, it’s too late to work with the system. If there were a doomday clock for this issue, we would be within 3 mins of “midnight”, and that’s optimistic. The Clock is ticking and they know it. Why’d you think they were buying up all that ammo?

  23. Howard
    Howard March 4, 2013 9:05 am

    No. Too many people think they can depend on the government for security both economic and against what ever outside force they fear. Some even think the government should be responsible to protect then from space rocks! Many think of all welfare programs as a “safety net”. We would have to rely on self, family, and local community to change that and “government” has been working for decades to breakdown those options. It will take chaos to bring this about.

  24. LarryA
    LarryA March 4, 2013 9:12 am

    I don’t see a totally peaceful solution, but there’s the possibility of partial recovery. Every place might not go belly-up at the same time.

    Say the wheels fell off one to several states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, Chicago, D.C, NYC, etc.*) and government, emergency services, law enforcement, and the military were overwhelmed in riots, burning, and chaos. (5,101 BATFE people** could get used up pretty quickly, even in a city the size of Detroit.)

    Folks in other parts of the country just might decide to make some changes. Those areas could be spared the violence.

    There might also be a cities burn/rural areas remain peaceful split.

    *Using “state” in the “self-governing entity” sense.

  25. Latigo Morgan
    Latigo Morgan March 4, 2013 9:28 am


    Those in power are there because they want to be in control. They will not leave their positions willingly, nor peacefully.

    The real problem rests with the entrenched bureaucrats. They are the petty dictators who make the politician’s dreams real.

    The Soviet Union is given as an example above. If you study closely, you will note the same people who were in charge then, are still in charge.

  26. Pat
    Pat March 4, 2013 9:29 am

    To IAM: I’m with you, absolutely.

    But I was listing – off the top of my head – actions that might help get from A to B IF America remained what it is as a nation and simply decided to find solutions within the system. In any case, none of the items I mentioned are contradictory to a private system; very likely they would be expanded to include every contingency.

    I’m aware that it won’t work, but then I did say it was a “dream”, and dreams can turn into nightmares in a second. (True of any society, even the best of them, if people don’t stay alert and work at it.)

  27. Concealed Carrying Cyclist
    Concealed Carrying Cyclist March 4, 2013 10:00 am

    The absence of war is not peace.

    However, I don’t think it will take a shooting war to regain liberty.

    Look at Greece and Spain. They’re suffering through terrible times, brought about by the inevitable financial ruin that nations bring upon themselves when they overspend.

    Rocks are being thrown – mostly by people mad at the government who suddenly can’t keep providing for them. But there aren’t angry armed mobs of citizens fighting pitched battles against armed uniformed government thugs.

    It may be too late to work within the system, and it may be too early to shoot the bastards, but in this, the awkward stage, it’s perfectly reasonable to let the natural consequences of the failing system wreak havoc upon itself and self-correct.

  28. Michael B.
    Michael B. March 4, 2013 11:04 am

    I’m thinking your expat friend may be onto something. There’s no peaceful solution here. There will either be a collapse that leads to something worse, like fullblown naked totalitarianism, or a civil war. Maybe both.

    I’m considering getting out while the getting’s good.

  29. -s
    -s March 4, 2013 11:12 am

    It’s happening today, March 4, 2013 – if you bother to look:

    For the past month every “news” channel and radio show has been filled
    with endless talk about what would happen if the sequester came to

    The aircraft carriers would stay in port.
    Fewer army troops ready to occupy foreign lands.
    Fewer Air Force weapons available.
    The cops wouldn’t get still more military weapons.
    The DHS wouldn’t have as many drones.
    The TSA would be short of gropers.
    The bureaucrats would have less pay and less work (if that is possible).
    Fewer wildfires set (to prevent wildfires, natch.)
    Fewer FBI agents.
    Fewer hospital visits.
    Less surveillance.
    Fewer wiretaps, fewer wiretaps reviewed and translated.
    Reduced spending on nuclear weapons.
    Less money for FEMA.
    Reduced patrols for drugs coming in on boats.
    $500 million less given to other countries to buy our weapons.
    Fewer people persecuted by the US Attorney’s office.
    Smaller unemployment checks.
    Fewer OSHA inspections.
    Slower reporting of economic “data.”
    Fewer environmental compliance inspections.
    46,000 military-industrial complex jobs lost.
    Most government programs will be cut

    It may be only temporary, or perhaps not.
    It may not be the lesson the masters intended, but who cares what they want?
    This is one of many peaceful solutions for restoring freedom.

  30. Jorge
    Jorge March 4, 2013 11:21 am

    I have a different take.

    First of all we have to define what is meant by “restoring freedom”. We should not forget that for many the promise of freedom and the guarantees offered by the US constitution were honored more in the breech than in practice. A black person in Mississippi in the 1920s, a gay person just about anywhere in the US in the 1950s or a whiskey producer in 1791 could not be considered free.

    I do not think freedom can be restored, since it has not existed at any time in history.

    If the question is restated as “can we achieve more freedom from the state than we have now by peaceful means?” Then I think the answer is a qualified yes.

    Several people have pointed at the old Soviet Union as a negative example, but I think it is actually a positive one. People in Russia have far more freedom today than they had under the Soviet regime. People in most of the former east block nations are much freer than they were before. Even in China and Vietnam people have more freedom than they did three decades ago.

    Are these people free? Not by a long shot, but there is a good argument to be made that most of the former communist countries are moving in the right direction.

    The United States, and most (all?) of the English speaking world is moving in the wrong direction. However, it may only take a small event to change that. Something as small as Monday demonstrations were a huge factor in the collapse of Eastern European communism.

    I am hopeful that something will spark a change, and that things will start moving in a good direction once again. Mostly peacefully.

  31. Mark Call
    Mark Call March 4, 2013 11:44 am

    Simple answer: NO.

    There really IS “nuthin’ new under the sun.”

  32. Alex
    Alex March 4, 2013 12:14 pm

    USSR collapsed peacefully, so I’d assume if current leadership of the country brings it near economic collapse and majority of the people will go into shadow markets, rather than follow official rules of conducting business, powers to be might decide to step down rather than risk of being overthrown.

    But it needs to get worse, much worse than now, in order to get to that as Che Gevara (or some other revolutionary leader) has said before.

  33. Reginald Firehammer
    Reginald Firehammer March 4, 2013 12:41 pm

    I always find myself most closely allied with the opinion of Kent McManigal. He’s just not quite as radical as I am.

    First, “political freedom,” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. There are no free societies and never have been. There are only free individuals who have earned that freedom by their own effort.

    There are no social or political solutions. Looking for them is how all oppression begins. It’s why there are public utilities, public (government day prison) schools.

    You want an education, you earn and pay for it. You want freedom, you earn and pay for it. Those who want a government to supply their freedom are just like those who want the government to supply their education, protection, or health care.

    So the answer is no. There has never been political liberty, so it can’t be “restored.”

    Kent’s right. It’s only freedom, “in your own life,” that matter’s. No one is responsible for anyone else’s freedom, not the country’s, not their community’s, and not their neighbor’s. In fact, it’s none of our business whether anyone else is free or not. They may not want to be. Most don’t..

  34. just waiting
    just waiting March 4, 2013 1:17 pm

    Glad to see you’re getting some time to yourself Claire, I hope you’re enjoying it. This winter has been a depressing one, thankfully, Spring is only 15 days away.

    I wish I had the wisdom to solve the problems of the world, but alas… I also wish I had the knowledge of some of my fellow Commentariat… But I’m a keep it simple kind of guy. And what’s more simple than just saying NO? It was good enough for Nancy Reagan to teach our kids, why not follow her example? Of course it comes with consequences, any action of defiance does. But what better way to start something. NO, I won’t pay your taxes/extortion. NO, I won’t pay your traffic tickets. NO, I won’t obey your random and arbitrary statutes you masquearde as “laws”. NO, you don’t control me.

    Arlo and Alice’s Restaurant comes to mind. If just one person does it, they’ll think you’re crazy. If 2 people do it… If 3 people do it… If 100 people do it, well then folks we got a revolution.

  35. Bear
    Bear March 4, 2013 1:42 pm

    “If 100 people do it, well then folks we got a/ r/e/v/o/l/u/t/i/o/n/ drone and MRAp strikes.

    Fixed it.

  36. just waiting
    just waiting March 4, 2013 1:48 pm

    LOL, thanks Bear

  37. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 4, 2013 4:20 pm

    “There are no free societies and never have been.”

    I’ve come across that statement wayyy too many times. All of history is Not known, therefore; ain’t nobody can say the above for certain.

    “It’s only freedom, “in your own life,” that matter’s.”

    I do not think that is a true statement either, for a variety of reasons I thought were quite obvious to many, the freedom of your family and your friends being one, allodial land title being another:

    “Examples of decentralized society in history are often hidden. They are hidden because those in decentralized societies never bothered to keep records. They are also hidden for the purposes of the current state. I have previously written about anarchy in the Southeast Asian Highlands [URL] as one example. Here, I will present the time of the Middle Ages as another.

    This time offered a system of private law. A law not based on the edicts of the king, but based on local tradition and culture. The king was not above the law, but equally subject to it. For law to be law, it must be both old and good. Each lord had a veto power over the king and over each other law (I will use the term “lord” for those landed free men. Even the serfs could not be denied their right without adjudication. Land was not held as a favor from the king; title was allodial. A man’s home truly was his castle.” …

  38. Jim Klein
    Jim Klein March 4, 2013 4:24 pm

    “‘Society’ as a whole, no. Individuals, maybe”

    I agree. And since there are only individuals out there, this translates to, “Yes, maybe.”

    Of course not every individual will choose not to be a thug, but that hardly matters. That’s WHY we’re armed. Tyranny is something else altogether and either those who want to impose it will wake up, else they’ll have a miserable go of it, trying.

    The only reason they’ve gotten away with it so far, at least in this country, is because the citizenry allowed it. Nay, even wanted it. Now that enough are willing to say they don’t want it, and won’t have it, it ain’t gonna happen. Everyone may die if they try something truly idiotic like a nuke, but that’s just an inherent risk of having nukes around. It won’t get them the loot, and it won’t get us the tyranny.

    Yes, unfortunately they are that stupid and evil. One can only hope for the best, and do what one can to build a proper world around oneself. Nobody can stop a determined soul from trying whatever madness he can think of, whether a hijacker or a politician.

    But one can go to pretty far lengths, to stop ’em. Let’s not forget, it ain’t that tough to outwit idiots. And lastly, to the final line of the post—there is no bigger picture. That’s been the essence of the scam all along. That beachhead is reality, if that’s where you live.

  39. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 4, 2013 4:25 pm

    Also, ” In fact, it’s none of our business whether anyone else is free or not.”

    What if they ask for your help? Do you ignore them?

  40. gooch
    gooch March 4, 2013 6:33 pm

    Sorry to be so negative while you are “in the blues” Claire but I sure don’t see how it can actually happen without a violent confrontation of some sort even if it is restricted in scope.
    [Vision of mobs with pitchforks assaulting the castle] OR freedomistas with AR’s and AK’s at Mordor on the Potomac and various other havens of corruption.

    Although I really don’t think it will come to WWII style “set piece” conflict. I think that too many folks are fed up enough that the 5th Generation Warfare [5GW] concept will win out and the change will look more like the Fall of the Bastile.
    [Banksters and 3P’s should be buying up that vacation hideaway Now.]
    Does anyone really believe that the PTB’s are buying ammo in ship load amounts just for training purposes?

    So … short answer … No.
    Pollyanna /Hopeful Hannah answer… probably not but … maybe.

    3P’s = Professional Political Parasite ‘s

  41. Shel
    Shel March 4, 2013 8:03 pm

    I was hoping, in vain, to find a significantly more optimistic opinion than mine. In his Brave New World Revisited, 1958, Aldous Huxley said, on p.4, “[T]he nightmare of total organization… has emerged from the safe, remote future and is now awaiting us, just around the corner.”

    Even if there is no resistance, I think the government will initiate the violence on a scale much larger than Ruby Ridge or Waco. One doesn’t buy 1.6 billion rounds, or whatever, of hollow point ammunition to prevent airplane hijackings or twerps’ stealing their mothers’ guns and murdering teachers and elementary school children who are required by law to be defenseless.

    With a Moslem marxist president with a murky past who is the front man for whoever the powers happen to be and an accelerating media campaign, I don’t know how this can ever evolve peacefully. The haves and have nots schism will be harped on incessantly. I still think the most likely scenario is some level of martial law in the summer.

    Governments, as we well know, are the biggest killers of all.

  42. jed
    jed March 4, 2013 8:34 pm

    Fascinating piece on law in the Dark Ages.

    I think the best hope we have for a mostly peacefull rollback is an economic collapse, followed by a breakup. How the political boundaries fall in such a scenario … well, there’s some possibility for greater freedom in some areas, but I suspect most of the states, or city-states, will attempt to continue with their current set of local laws. However, it should be easier to repeal such. Well, that’s a hopeful prediction. Difficult to say how much warfare will attend to such a collapse.

  43. Mr Galt
    Mr Galt March 4, 2013 9:12 pm

    I would say “no” and I would add, most people, including the big macho talkers (cold dead hands and all) will either go along with it, or wind up being passively led to slaughter or enslavement

    I’m just now finishing reading Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” and if you want to really see how the herd reacts when confronted with government aggression, this is the book you should read. 66+ million slaughtered in wave after wave of Soviet repression. Systematic, unceasing, and brutal.

    Solzhenitsyn points out that humanity’s main failing is “hope” – desperate, slim, but hope nonetheless. And tyrants are EXPERTS at playing the false hope game. No offense, but I see it on display even here. I would say we are pretty well finished. There’s no putting the cows back into the barn this time.

  44. A.G.
    A.G. March 4, 2013 9:45 pm

    Mr. Galt- Stalin had the backing of the Soviet military, and was going up against unarmed peasents. Peasents who didn’t have any electronic means to communicate what was happening as things began to unfold. I question how the would-be dictators will get around the fact that they do not have these advantages.
    We recently saw what one fat, poorly trained Marxist ex-cop was capable of, using weapons many Americans have.
    Interested in your response.

  45. Requester-Sequester
    Requester-Sequester March 5, 2013 12:00 am



    Whatever happened to the two dog rescue that happened in Feb.????


  46. Pre-press veteran
    Pre-press veteran March 5, 2013 3:41 am

    jed: “I think the best hope we have for a mostly peacefull rollback is an economic collapse, followed by a breakup.”

    The probability of this scenario, is in the top 3, I think. TPTB can’t control it – they just think they can. I spent all day thinking about how to answer this question because it is the most important question of our time, to my way of thinking. It might even be a prerequisite condition for the movement to actively rebel and resist, in a large way… (I can’t really see all that in detail right now.)

    The reason, tho… is that I think the locus of “power” needs to shift down the scale to regional… more local… before the benefits of resistance outweigh the risks. Before there can safely be that kind of organization and coordination. Laws will be selectively enforced – or not – based on local conditions. Many laws exist on the books, that through general disuse are not even known to the “guys in charge”.

    Entropy is messy. Let’s use Detroit as the poster-child. Even with a plan to staunch the financial bleeding, the “recovery” time for this city is going to be measured in decades. The bigger the city – the more regulations/laws/intrustion into people’s personal freedoms – the uglier the de-volution. Just got the “Intelligence Report” yesterday… and was surprised to note just how many hate groups – larger numbers – are located in the prime, blue-state city areas. Twice as many, as exist out in rural, fly-over country.

    At any rate, I think “it” is already happening; the conditions are setting the stage for what comes later (and therefore, my mood has been pretty bleak too)… but because of the distortion of common sense, denial of reality, and desperation to hang on to control… TPTB and media are keeping mum and trying to shine the s*** they keep spinning for the masses… making an already serious situation, that much worse.

  47. JWG
    JWG March 5, 2013 6:03 am

    There are peaceful solutions. Civil disobedience-the mass disregard of the government by the population remains the easiest peaceful solution.

    The mechanics are simple. Any law must be consented upon by an almost unanimous majority to be effective. The disobedient ones remove that consent. If the government must send an armed collection agent out to collect every cent of tax owed, it will soon become cost prohibitive to collect taxes. The same goes for the other “thou shalt!” laws.

    The weakness of civil disobedience is on an individual level. The police and taxmen have the power to torture and destroy individuals. Nobody wants to be the first to die for refusal to cooperate. It does come to that, very quickly. If the police show up because you have refused to pay taxes, and you refuse to let them come into your house, they may break down your door and beat you to death.

    There is also the semantics of what exactly peaceful is. Over most of the world, peace is a condition in which the person claiming peace is a member of the political faction that is able to dominate or kill members of opposing factions without fear of reprisal. So in the same place at the same time, one has peace while another does not. That relativistic thinking has a following within the US government. Do you doubt? Simply withdraw your consent to police brutality, drone strikes, and endless war. They will call you a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, a threat to peace.

    It will be impossible for the US to have a combat-free transition to freedom. Those with the power to kill will use it to try to keep their place at the top. The use of that power will only accelerate their downfall. It will remove the foundation of government: justice. People demand justice from their government. If government does not provide it, then people will get justice their own way. If government becomes the source of injustice, then people will destroy it.

  48. Reginald Firehammer
    Reginald Firehammer March 5, 2013 8:45 am

    Hi IndividualAudienceMember,

    I appreciate the comments.

    I’m surprised if you have oftern “run across” the statement there has never been a free society. Most people believe the United States is, or at least was, a free country. My statement was a bit rhetorical, however. No one knows about every possible society there might have been. Personally, I know of many free individuals, past and present, and since they often interacted with each other, you might call those “free societies,” but they were and are very small ones.

    Of course you do not have to agree with it, but my point about freedom only mattering to the individuals is that whether anyone else chooses to be free or not is none of my business.

    Since freedom means being totally responsible for one’s own life and choices, and only those who are totally confident in their own ability to live their lives successfully really want freedom. They will not be asking for anyone else’s help. If I need someone else’s help, I’m not independent, I’m dependent, which isn’t really freedom, is it?

    I don’t think you and I would agree what freedom actually is. If you could be satisfied with what you think freedom was in the Middle ages, you are more easily satisfied than I am, which is certainly to your advantage.

  49. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 5, 2013 9:32 am

    “If I need someone else’s help, I’m not independent, I’m dependent, which isn’t really freedom, is it?”

    So, the minute you pass out from a broken leg, you’re suddenly no longer free?

    On the next blog thread Brian lists how some Native American Indians viewed things. They confidently thought they were free, however; they certainly needed help to maintain that freedom.

    Read through Brian’s list and tell us how they were not free?

    “but my point about freedom only mattering to the individuals is that whether anyone else chooses to be free or not is none of my business.”

    Ahh, but what if you are drawn into conflict, is it still none of your business then?

    Also, how are you free if the land you own is not allodial land title?

  50. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 5, 2013 9:39 am

    The example of the so-called Dark Ages didn’t contain a list such as the following, how was it less free, how could you be satifsifed with the way things are now in light of the way things were?

    This is freedom?:

    We can’t grow crops and keep animals on our own land.
    We can’t extract minerals and energy from our own land.
    We can’t practice our trades in our own neighborhoods.
    We can’t socialize and celebrate in our own neighborhoods.
    We can’t buy and sell goods in our own neighborhoods.
    We can’t care for and instruct our children in our own homes.
    We can’t treat and care for our own sick in our neighborhoods.
    We can’t settle our own disputes.
    We can’t build and maintain our own utilities and improvements.
    We can’t determine our own criteria for neighborhood residency.
    We can’t determine what property is allowable on our own land.

  51. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 5, 2013 10:10 am

    One more question(s) and I’ll quit blog-hogging.

    “If you could be satisfied with what you think freedom was in the Middle ages, you are more easily satisfied than I am”

    Why would you not be just as free then, as now?

    If you would have been just as free then as now, why wouldn’t you be satisfied with that freedom?

    I am presuming you read the link. You did read it, didn’t you?

  52. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal March 5, 2013 12:20 pm

    Your list of “We can’t”s… you really can. Just because a “law” may exist that says you can’t do a thing doesn’t really affect your ability to do it. It just means there is a thug watching to punish you if he catches you. Be sneaky.

  53. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit
    The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit March 5, 2013 3:24 pm

    Not a chance, Claire.

  54. Mr Galt
    Mr Galt March 5, 2013 5:51 pm


    My response:

    “Stalin had the backing of the Soviet military”

    He actually primarily used domestic security forces – the “Blue Hats” or NKVD. Solzhenitsyn describes how the Blue Hats would come down a street in the evening and systematically go door-to-door, arresting “criminals”. People coward in fear in their homes, hoping they wouldn’t come for them. In one passage, he describes discussions in the camps where prisoners would ask “why didn’t we stand in the entryway of the apartment houses armed with hammers, knives, and clubs, and pounce on them as they entered?” No one ever did. He further posits that had they resisted as best they could and made the Blue Hats fear as to whether they would come home at night, soon the government would have had trouble finding people to go out and do the job.

    I believe he is right about that, and yet, the Soviet people largely didn’t resist. In the camps and transfer stations, guards often were armed only with clubs. Again, the Blue Hats were largely safe. Many people that he interviewed for the book said they were afraid of making trouble in the hopes they would be released, or that the authorities would realize their “mistake” in doing this to them. After all, they were just ordinary people, not criminals.

    And speaking of criminals, that was another way the government kept people in line. They sprinkled hardcore criminals in their midst and allowed them to dominate the group of average people. These real criminals generally got much lighter sentences than the counter revolutionaries. Sounds a little like illegal aliens, entitlement minorities, etc. in the U.S., no?

  55. Reginald Firehammer
    Reginald Firehammer March 6, 2013 10:25 am

    Hi IndividualAudienceMember,

    You are not going to agree with me and I have no interest in convincing you, but I found your questions interesting, so I’ll answer them. Please don’t consider them argumets, just expressions of someone that thinks differently from you.

    “So, the minute you pass out from a broken leg, you’re suddenly no longer free?”

    Freedom pertains to choice. The question of freedom does not pertain to unconscious people. If I were in the woods alone when my leg was broken and I passed out, I would either die, or regain consciousness and see what I could do. That’s what freedom is. It is very risky. Most people are terrified of real freedom and I fully understand that fear. I don’t expect them to want what they are afraid of.

    The last time I had a serious medical problem that immobilized me, I paid to be transported to a hospital. Paying for a service is not asking for help. It’s how free individuals act in a society, exchanging value for value.

    I thought this question was interesting too:

    “Ahh, but what if you are drawn into conflict, is it still none of your business then?”

    But I would never be “drawn into conflict.” The only conflict that I might be confronted with is an individual threatening me with force. It happened to me once about forty years ago. It was only necessary to show the assailant the gun in my lap–end of conflict. I certainly didn’t care if the assailant was free or not.

    Not so interesting but as a courtesy:

    “Also, how are you free if the land you own is not allodial land title?”

    I’ve never owned land in the United States. Nobody does. When I own land, like all other earned property, it is my responsibility to defend it in the rare instance it might need to be defended. That would have to be where there was very little government or one small enough to bribe.

    And I see you had another question.

    Presumptions are dangerous. I did not read the article. I started to until I recognized it as just another of the many revisionist glorifications of the horrible middle ages I’ve read before. Catholics are very fond of such revisions. I suppose if I had lived in those times, I might have been as free as possible, but one requirement of true individual freedom is wealth, and it would have been very difficult to produce much wealth, honestly, in those times. Many of the religious were wealthy, of course, not suffering, as I do, from compunction against dishonesty.

  56. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember March 6, 2013 7:22 pm

    Nah, I wasn’t trying to be argumentative, just thinking and asking questions.

    Thanks for the reply.

  57. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau March 7, 2013 12:28 pm

    While the decay of liberty has not been monotonic (for example, it was better after WWII than during it), I think we have finally lost so much that there is no substantial backtracking any more. The societal reset, with vast numbers being killed, seems unavoidable.

    The good news is that the Remnant will continue trucking on, as it always does. And at the end of this mess, those who survive do have an excellent chance at liberty.

  58. puptent
    puptent March 9, 2013 9:13 am

    Mr. Galt, (may I call you John?) I can’t think of a Pogrom that was resisted successfully or even significantly. I tend to think that the hardest thing to do is to physically resist in the face of Government Might. The perception of the victim is that the whole of society is against you, not for you. The silence is deafening. To organize against a Pogrom… well, help me think of one. This country’s favorite saint, Saint Roosevelt, handed Stalin everything that he wanted and asked for with the knowledge that the result would be the enslavement of half of Europe (Yalta was the beginning of the “Cold War”, FDR just didn’t know what he’d agreed to.) Did any one, except Churchill, say something like, “Hey, wait a minute!” My grandmother died in East Germany, her husband was murdered by Russians. I have relatives that survived the Iron Curtain and National Socialism. I have no illusions about the will or the way of The State. Until the generation of people now between 20 and 30 realize what it is they have voted for (and what they will have to pay for) things will continue to go as they have, and the Totalitarians and the Statists (Fascists) will hold sway.

Leave a Reply