This is a companion piece to Tuesday’s “Live deliberately.” Part I defines the problem. Part II is a challenge to become the solution.
—–
Twenty years ago, when the Internet was barely a thing, Jeffrey R. Snyder set Fidonet and Usenet groups afire with his essay, “A Nation of Cowards.”
Snyder demolished the then-common advice, “Don’t resist criminals. Just give them what they want. Your life is more valuable than your property.” He wrote in no uncertain terms that meek submission diminishes and devalues life. And personal character. And culture. He went on to nail virtually all “gun control” as hokum. Elitist hokum. Deadly hokum.
The 9/11 hijackings (in which the majority of those airline passengers fatally followed recommendations not to resist) put an exclamation point on Snyder’s message about handling criminals. Twenty years of gun-rights activism wrote Snyder’s message in bold and underlined it.
Today, violent freelance crime is down and every crook with half a brain knows that he may lose the other half to an armed homeowner, c-store clerk, or concealed-carrying pedestrian.
Yet more than ever, we are a nation of cowards.
—–
When I write “we,” I don’t mean you. I probably don’t know you. I don’t know how brave or cowardly you may be. I suspect that the individuals reading this are likely to be more willing to stand up for themselves, their loved ones, and their principles than most. Still, we vary. Any one of us might be a lionheart in one circumstance and a lamb in another.
But as a nation, a culture, a people — a whatever you want to call the millions living under the U.S. security-theater regime — we have become cowardly. Not merely cowardly but (much worse) servile.
You know what I’m talking about. You know it so well I hardly need to give examples. But here are a few, so that if you share this article with your grandmother she’ll know what we’re talking about, too.
- Parents allow their children to be sexually molested by TSA agents without a whimper of protest. Few seem to care when the gropers propagandize children into obedience.
- In a country where everyone once had a right and even a duty to resist unlawful arrest, most meekly submit to cops, no matter how blatant the wrongdoing or the bullying. Just as Snyder’s meek victims were told that it’s best to submit to freelance criminals, we’re now told to do absolutely anything a cop demands. After all, our lawyers can work things out later.
- Anywhere the Royal President of the Land travels, mere citizens are expected to scamper out of his way. If we don’t, we’re bullied out, shoved out, arrested; we may even be killed. But for the most part billions of dollars worth of minions and equipment ensure that we don’t even get the chance to sully the Great One with our scrofulous presence. We’re not even allowed to use the same freeways or city streets down which this Superior Being might travel. The very air around him is sacred. Soldiers, even stalwart Marines are disarmed in his Presence. Even his wife and children — even his dogs — have more privileges than we. All this is relatively new in American life. It’s the stuff of Oriental potentates and pompous pashas. Yet, aside from occasional grumbles about the cost, even the vast reaches of the Internet are silent on how wrong it is that a mere hireling should be lifted so high above those who allegedly hired him.
Yes, we sneer, protest, and joke about the subjection we endure at the hands of Our Betters. (Jokes, by the way, are among the last refuges of resistance in totalitarian countries.) But endure the subjection we do.
Oh, the rare few resist. There was the “Don’t touch my junk” guy. And Terry Bressi, the famous checkpoint buster. Accross the land, there are more people than I can name. Saying no. Risking arrest. Paying the price.
Plenty of lawsuits have been won after the fact by people who watched their pets, children, or partners die at the hands of thuggish agents of the state. A few go farther — too far yet not far enough — failing to understanding that they’re not striking at the root.
Yes, people are angry and some resist. Yet an unresisting majority still says (and actually seems to believe) that every act of official brutality or high-handedness is somehow “for our own good.” Even when some abuse is too blatant to ignore, citizens and commentators across the land can be heard making excuses: “They’re ordinary people doing their jobs.” “They may be misguided, but they’re doing what they believe is best for the country.” “The problem is just a few bad apples.” (And why does everybody miss that the rest of that saying — and the observable truth — notes that even one bad apple eventually spoils the whole barrelful?)
—–
Related to this is the national hysteria about personal safety. You can’t serve a peanut on an airplane because someone, somewhere might be allergic. You must shun fat — all fat, any fat — in your food because erroneous common “wisdom” says it’ll kill you. Every remotely unsafe thing must be removed from every playground — and from children’s lives. We must carry bottles of sanitizer in our pockets, purses, and vehicles because, heaven forfend, something we touch might have a germ on it.
We are coached to fear everything.
And of course, this fits right into our national tolerance for every form of “official” brutality and overreach. Because a) the world is scary, scary, scary and b) the government is the ONLY thing that can protect us from it all. Regulations, enforcers, airport gropers, safety Nazis, all-seeing surveillance — we need them because they’re all that stands between us and complete, total, utter terror.
Never mind that they have used our fear as their excuse to become the terror.
What matters is that we have become submissive worms to be trod under their boots. And most of us — horrifyingly — appear to think that this is what life in a “free country” is supposed to be. Fear. Obedience. Orders. Robo-cops. Servility. Surveillance. Being told what we’re “allowed” to do (or more often not allowed). Being treated like trash. None of it matters! Just wave the flag and sing those patriotic anthems and you’re free! Don’t dare look too close at the reality.
We have learned to become cowards without even recognizing that that’s what we are. We have learned to become subjects while believing ourselves proud, brave, and free.
—–
Now we must re-learn how to live boldly.
Continued tomorrow (or this weekend if I get behind).
The cowardice goes both ways, and is most plainly evident to me in the actions of those TSA rapists and paranoid cops– and in the overwhelming fear that keeps everyone away from the prez, lest his royal crown be dented by a bullet. It’s the cowardice of those who imagine themselves to be ordained to power which results in all those silly rules. And the compliance results from the illusion that “they” outnumber “us”- they don’t, but they are most resolved to kill us all while backing up their “brothers” than we are resolved to kill them all in self defense. I’m convinced it is well past time to begin to “STB”, but also recognize it wouldn’t go well, individually or for liberty as a whole, unless it happened on a very widespread basis simultaneously. So, for now it gets worse.
So was George Washington a coward? After all, he did not continually throw the Continental Army at the Redcoats at any and every opportunity. wearing out his troops in a vain effort to win victory over a group that that was larger, stronger, and better equipped. Or how about Võ Nguyên Giáp? I just don’t recall the North Vietnamese Army launching 2Gen or 3Gen war style offensives against the American military in Vietnam.
And yet who won those wars? The side with overwhelming superiority? Or the side that was cowardly? I guess that depends on your definition of “win.” If I insist that I have to have My Way, Right Now (like most Americans), then yes, they lost, for each and every day that they didn’t get their way (much as a two year old loses every time he throws a tantrum). If you define win as “kicked the other guy out after a long and arduous struggle,” however….
Hobbit, you know me well enough to realize I’m not ever going to suggest random flinging of oneself or one’s resources at a powerful, brutal state. Or to imply that someone’s a coward for not doing such.
“Or the side that was cowardly?”
You’ve just set up a straw man to knock down. Nobody but you implied that there was any cowardice in the people & situations you describe.
Picking your battles is not cowardice. It’s just common sense.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Claire, not a strawman at all – any more than I’d suggest your connection between a pro-gun article and an overarching social condition is an overgeneralization. My point is that it is not necessarily cowardice to not fling oneself headlong at the opponent, hoping to batter him into submission, particularly when you’re outmanned and outgunned (though see Sun Tzu’s commentary on “death ground” for further discussion). But bear in mind there is a difference between a “submissive worm” who accepts the boot-in-his-face as being “for his own good,” and the minority who do not believe it’s time to pop the caps on their MagPuls.
People are indeed coached to fear everything. But even in the area of law (especially self defense) there’s a difference between blind fear (which is what the statists want the sheeple to have) and reasonable fear. Fear and victimizationing (my only LRC article) are fairly potent sticks and carrots for control a population, and the statists have had time to become quite skilled in their use.
“Picking your battles is not cowardice. It’s just common sense.”
Absolutely. What Jim B. says.
And Hobbit, you’re absolutely mystifying me by assuming I’m ever going to recommend hasty, dangerous, ill-thought, downright random action. Am I that poor a writer? Is there anything in my entire history of writing to make you think I’m implying that people should just hurl themselves willy-nilly into the maw of deadly Authoritah?
These comments are getting good ↑
A couple of random musings:
You note that Obama does absolutely nothing without heavy security. Otto Carius, a WWII German armored officer, in his book titled Tigers in the Mud, describes how prior to a presentation of a medal he was given a private reception by Heinrich Himmler in Himmler’s office in late 1944. The conversation was extremely cordial and open even though Carius expressed some genuine concerns about their nation (not about the concentration camps to which Carius had no connection) that he believed might provoke an angry response. Carius further noted that while his briefcase was taken before his audience with Himmler, his pistol, which he wore openly, was not. Needless to say, Obama would never let that happen.
Regarding a rotten apple being able to spoil a barrel, I remember reading the opinion that the then BATF should be abolished and the employees moved elsewhere. G. Gordon Liddy opined that the only real solution would be to terminate all the employees. His analogy was that if you pour dirty water into clean water, you get dirty water.
In the interest of deflecting the appearance of a fight between old friends, might I suggest that what we’re dealing with (in the comments more than in Claire’s column) is frustration?
The problem isn’t (with folks here) cowardice. It’s trying to figure out a tactic that’s effective and doesn’t violate our personal principles. It’s watching the “bad guys” twist, bend, fold, spindle, mutilate, and break the rules that they insist we follow… and watching the lamestream muddia not only let them get away with it but aiding and abetting. It’s knowing that even if we manage to reconcile rules and principles, we’re still going to get blamed for the outlying psychopaths who abide by neither (think Aurora shooter used as the rationalization for blaming all gun owners to get their cute litle rights-violations passed last year).
It’s that niggling little feeling that just maybe we could accomplish something if we’d chuck principles just once… while knowing that even if we did the LS would hold that against us, too.
It’s knowing that “our side” can’t even agree on what freaking principles to hold. NAP/ZAP/DAM Debate/Lib Purity, anyone?
It’s wondering if abandoning principles just might be the lesser of evils. Or which principles are expendable/negotiable. And that sick churning in your stomach for even considering it. But still wondering…
Or worse yet, fearing that someone applied a little political Daylight Saving Time, and jumped right past “half past Claire Time*) to Too-Damned-Late-Anthem-Is-Inevitable-Now.
So like a hurt dog snapping at his human who’s trying to help, we sometimes snap at each other. Do your best to remember that we are on the same side, and we’re all dealing with at least some elements of this frustration.
—
* Sorry, Claire. I know you hate that, but it’s an analogy people recognize.
Thanks the the sanity and the defusion, Bear.
I probably shouldn’t have published part I without part II.
If we all AGREED that we were being subjected to tyranny a drop at a time, exactly what principles would we be violating when we fought each drop?
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism……”
Nah, I don’t buy it.
Keep in mind Snyder wrote “A Nation of Cowards” due to the apparent unstoppable trend in gun control. Well guess what? It was (largely) stopped; it’s mostly a ruling class wet dream any more. The reason is that people aren’t cowards after all.
It seems commonplace to rank Americans as pushovers because we tend to be unruly and undisciplined. Then a war comes around and ordinary Americans turn out to be no more cowardly than anybody else.
Certainly there is indoctrination, but it is thin; it serves only to keep people down in ordinary circumstances. When things get unusual you will see people step up to the plate as needed. Of course people are individuals and will all react differently. Those not fit will end up dead, just as Nature “intended”. I don’t see a problem with that.
No, if you want to generalize, then the cowards are in the ruling class, not the rest of us.
The TSA propaganda video, which should have been named “Stop, Bend Over, and Cry,” was nauseating. Can you imagine the trauma for those children whose parents make them watch it, who then get groped?
TSA perverts: the ultimate product of the public school system.
The joke about the Polish, GDR, and West German dogs hinted at something I’ve noticed before. Revolt happens most often when people are hungry. What happens when the EBT system stops working national-wide? Nothing good, I think.
Tahn, I don’t know. It’s different for every individual. Tears for Fears songs aside, I don’t want to tell everyone to what values they must hold fast. Some of the people who routinely comment on Claire’s blog are outright anarchists who would “smash the State”; others are very much working in the system to (quite literally) provide some justice.
Seattle-style “anarchists” have no problem smashing the private property of innocent third parties to make their point (don’t think all of those were agents provocateur). But while I lean heavily towards the idea of a Smithian Confederate anarchocapitalist “utopia”, I will not engage in terrorism aimed at those who didn’t do it to me to get there.
Heck, we can’t even all agree on what constitutes a drop of tyranny. Abortion? Animal rights? Property rights (lock a hardcore anarchocapitalist in a room with a Georgist for hours of fun)?
So, yeah. It’s frustrating. Sometimes principles suck. Just remember we’re doing the best we can.
“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.”
~ Sun Tzu
Most folks don’t realize that during the War of Secession (American Revolution) only 30% of colonist supported independence and no more than 5% actually participated in military actions. That was then; this is now.
More recent history suggests that the best way to victory is to remove oneself from the battlefield. I only exist because my grandfather fled Ukraine during the Russian Revolution, settling in Canada. Two of my grandfather’s brothers also fled before Ukraine was crushed by the Soviets. One of his brothers never left and died in a camp. It took almost 70 years but my grandfather was victorious when the Soviet Union disintegrated of its own flaws. I observe the US following the same course as the former Soviets, and like my grandfather, I am removing myself from the battlefield by moving to a nation where liberty still thrives, government debt is almost non-existent and the economy has boomed while the US and the West flounder in the death-rows of crumbling empires. I expect to live to witness the implosion of this particular Police State, on TV.
Cowardice? Hardly. How many others today have the balls to start from scratch in an unknown land? My grandfather did. My father did. So do I.
To follow my adventure from the land of former freedoms see http://7thpillar.wordpress.com/
“Not merely cowardly but (much worse) servile.” <= Exactly.
Some gross generalizations:
–At this time approximately 40% of the population get some portion of their livelihood from govt. Chances are most in this group are happy with the status quo. Yes, when the EBT card quits they will be out for blood. But does anyone want this cadre involved in setting up and operating America V.2?
I do not.
–As I recall, governments now employ more people than the private sector? Unlikely that govt employees will be boat rockers and like the safety net beneficiaries, are these folks good candidates for picking up the pieces?
Don't think so
–That leaves the Remnant. What percentage of the population are liberty lovers, cowardly or not?
My guesstimate is 1% or less.
Opinions – worth exactly what was paid for them:
There is zero chance of changing Leviathan, no matter how brave we are.
The only hope I see is secession/fragmentation. A post meltdown Galts Gulch/Libertopia for the true believers. Then we can start the liberty to slavery cycle all over again.
I look forward to Claire's next installment. Maybe it will drag me out of my rational downer……no pressure Claire :-).
Jim
The 9/11 hijackings (in which the majority of those airline passengers fatally followed recommendations not to resist) put an exclamation point on Snyder’s message about handling criminals.
I really think this was a turning point. Lots of people saw how badly “if they want the airplane give them the airplane, otherwise someone might get hurt” failed. They began to take a closer look at the corollaries. The spread of concealed carry licenses boosted the effect.
Unfortunately the media haven’t caught up yet. From them we hear that a handful of states passed more gun control after Sandy Hook. What we don’t usually hear is that 30 states passed gun-rights legislation in the same period. The media is still reporting the spread of school resource officers and teachers carrying guns as isolated incidents promoted by the NRA. Actually, it’s beginning to look more like a movement and the source (at least in Texas) is the Texas PTA and the Texas Association of School Boards. These are education folks, who have never ever listened to anything the NRA said.
That’s just my bailiwick. I have a feeling similar rumblings are making noise in health care, war on drugs (Colorado), and other venues.
Oh, and down here in Texas use of force is not justified to resist a law enforcement officer’s search or arrest even if the search or arrest is unlawful. The only exception is if, before you offer any resistance, the officer uses excessive force. (Penal Code 9.31(b) and (c).)
We live in a time when the government, political parties, and a one-respected intellectual class are held in contempt by large majorities of the population. Essentially, it is a super-saturated solution of tyranny, waiting a bump. Then things will precipitate out in astonishing speed.
We saw this in 1989 with the Warsaw Pact, where in the blink of an eye they were gone. From uncontested power of their populations to gone, in a year or two.
Once the preference cascade begins it will move rapidly indeed. We will find ourselves allied with leftist radicals incandescent with rage at the banksters and financial blood suckers. How it plays out is anyone’s guess, but the nation is approaching the point where it will tip over. The ruling class is out of gas, out of ideas, and not even aware what’s going on.
They’ll find out. If we’re lucky, it will be like in Eastern Europe and there won’t be shooting, just Truth and Reconciliation meetings. If we’re lucky.
You decide: are we cowards for letting 1 or 2% of the population control our executive, legislative, and judicial branches? I am speaking of the homosexual community.
Oh, I know it is a can of worms. But hear me out.
My church (PCUSA) has gone through a tremendous change lately. I disagree with changing Biblical doctrine, so I am planning to change denominations. However, why should I be the one to change? If the gay and lesbian activists wanted a church, why couldn’t they form their own? Why mess with mine?
I did protest–oh, yes I did! I lost.
Am I a coward for letting my church cave in? Or am I helpless?
Are we cowards for letting our Royal Leader behave in this manner? Or are we helpless? Can we stand con-gress passing laws that overtax, over regulate everything? Or are we helpless because of in-your-face bureacracy and big business buying off politicians? Are we cowards for not standing up to activist judges or are we helpless?
Claire, I used to think I made a difference. Now I feel helpless. 2014 portends more of the same.
Now this is COWARDICE!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/31/looks-like-weimar-germany-the-viral-photo-out-of-connecticut-thats-giving-some-gun-owners-chills/
Disgusting!
(I haven’t read the comments here yet)
I feel like I just traveled around the full circle – because I started today reading this http://www.kelloggshow.com/2014/01/what-about-socialization-and-the-home-schoolroad-school-kid/ and then came here and read this. And now have the “did the chicken or egg come first?” feeling.
Both articles seem to reflect the situations perfectly.
I’m assuming the group here already recognize the problems, it’s the solutions that are so frustrating. If it can even be fixed, or corrected, or returned to some common sense again at this point.
WELL SAID and very true !
When one group of losers after another is put in power,and soon it becomes the norm,at that point in time, good can no longer be determined from bad,FOR four generations,the children in the schools have been brainwashed,by the whores who sold them out,CALLED TEACHERS,and the parents who only use the schools as babysitters,YOUR GUILTY AS WELL,NOW the entire system is ROTTEN ,top to bottom,rotten can’t be fixed,you have to burn it OR bury it,THE LORDS GOING TO THROW IT ON THE TRASH PILE AND BURN IT,when the fire goes out,america will be gone,including 97% of the population with it,HERES why your going to lose the coming war,Jeremiah 51:30,you turned your male children into girlymen and peterpans,NOW YOU’LL WISH YOU HADN’T…………………….
Claire, You are 100 percent correct. We see the treason, and yet we do nothing. We saw when Mike Zullo brought out 100 percent proof of obamas fraud, and we saw our elected leaders do nothing. We see the power of the LORD bring catastrophe after catastrophe and it is getting closer and closer to gether, like birth pangs. We see communism in our schools, and we do nothing. At least we can be like the french during world war 2 where indivduals threw wrenches in the gears everytime they could. General Vallely is coordinating out a true resistance, now is the time to support him. I recommend that as many as possible to purchase toy plastic army men, each with a fiream, toys remember, as they are cheap, and put them into the grade schol yards, the kids will enjoy them, the kids will get suspended and the parents will get pissed off. We must light a fire under ourselves and our brethren. The days of thinking that US Citizens will wake up and be a sleeping giant have lost merit, get real, do what you can to get people going.
Part of the problem is that everytime someone comes up with a solution, it generally gets poo-pooed or shouted down by other freedom lovers. Often it seems we want a utopian solution to a dystopian problem. If someone suggests voting out the bad and voting in better, they are told it won’t work and that voting itself is a matter of cowardice or complicity. If another one suggests going Expat to show their disgust and resistance, they are called cowardly and unpatriotic. If another should possibly suggest open resistance or insurrection (burn it all down), they are beaten about the head and shoulders with the ZAP or some other non-violent, non-resistance, principle. Finally one of the issues that the masters or our government are counting on is the fact that principled lovers of freedom can seldom come together for action. The two closest examples we’ve had was the Occupy Movement (not a bad idea overall) and the Tea Party (yes politically driven, but at leas they are trying) and they get little support even though they were succesful in their own small ways, and yes they were not perfect solutions to a much larger problem. We also don’t trust each other, believing the other persons or groups have already been compromised or infiltrated by the powers that be.
When the voiced consensus seems to be that resistance is futile, then we can’t be suprised when purposeful resistance does not occur. Instead of polemics that include don’t try this, don’t do that, bunch of losers don’t do nothing, we could use more about resistance that works, especially non-violent. Instead of lamenting we can’t change the country, we should probably start with changind our street, town, county, state first. Challenge the home owners association, propose changing laws to the town council, resist budget and tax increases, especially for defucnt schools and law enforcement. The avalanche of change starts with one snowball going its own way.
Please consider this suggestion of how We, the People, can regain influence in and control of our Congress, Government, Nation, and our Future. We, the People, come together as a lobby and voting block in matters in which we have a common interest. We lobby political candidates just prior to election to enact a list legislation we want, and offer a block of swing votes that assure election to the one who agrees to work for us. We also hold a recall petition to use if they lie to us. This will counter the power of the elite, Wall St, corporations, their lobbyists, and their campaign $$$$’s.
In every election the voter has the last word, not the campaign $$$$’s. We, the People, need only to elect a simple majority to Congress. That’s 218 in the House, and 51 in the Senate.
The voters in the lobby and block will come from independents, disgruntled Dem’s and Rep’s. From college students, recent grads, 2nd Amendment supporters, all seniors including AARP as an example of the many national organizations that would like to have influential voice in Congress. From the People who are sick and tired of voting for the lesser evil, and want our country put back on track.
Nice article, love seeing facts and truth. They cannot do what they want to you, unless you let them.
No government survives when the people cease to obey.
Right now, the Empire of Washington is desperately trying to use fear to make people obey. So far, it’s sort of working. It’s just not working well.
The tactics of the Stazi, training school children to spy on their parents, offering benefits to anyone who will make accusations against someone else, are pervasive in the Empire. The habit of distrust, of fear of one’s neighbors, exists. Is it spreading? Is it retreating? I cannot say.
A friend of mine was arrested for remaining silent. She was jailed, verbally abused, and had charge after charge made against her ONLY because she remained silent.
The future of liberty rests with those who disobey.
@Matt, another. So what you’re saying is that the courage of these “world changers'” convictions is so weak that any sort of pooh-poohing then puts them off their feed and into a terminal sulk such that they give up without even testfiring their program?
Wow. Talk about “too easily influenced by others….”
Let me suggest that the real problem is buried in your post, though – most of those alleged snowballs don’t WANT to “go it alone” if necessary. They are, at bottom, no different than the sheeple that they claim to be superior to. Without a herd, pounding its hoovies in agreement and all moving in the same supportive direction, they simply offer up the excuse that “I was pooh-poohed!!!” and then do nothing.
The joy of individualism (much like the joy of states’ rights) is that every individual gets to become a laboratory test animal for his proposed solution to … whatever it is he’s trying to solve. If it works, it gets adopted. If it doesn’t work (or the cost is too high), it doesn’t make the grade in the free market of ideas and strategies.
In short – “outer directed” people don’t make good individualists. So expecting them to ACT like individualists is probably in that “silk purse/sow’s ear transformation” category.
And @ Claire: I wasn’t assuming you were “recommending” anything. I *was* suggesting that you’re ascribing to cowardice (and ascribing said cowardice to all and sundry) what may merely be the result of apathy or different strategies. As Harry Harrison put it in one of his novels (I paraphrase lightly), with two characters discussing the issue:
“Better to die than live in chains!”
“No, it’s better to live in chains and figure out how to get rid of them. That way you end up alive-free, rather than dead-free, a much more attractive condition.”
Ah. @Bob Robertson.
Government exists only by the consent of the governed – you’re absolutely correct.
Though my preference is for Tao 60:
Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.
There is much to be said for Tao 17:
17
When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.
If you don’t trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn’t talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, “Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!”
America is mostly at the “feared” stage. When people get to the “despise” portion of the continuum, things get interesting. In the sense of the old Chinese curse, that is….
Worth thinking about:
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1911-violence-in-the-face-of-tyranny-is-often-necessary
Jim B., that’s disgusting alright, but I’m not sure it’s cowardice. Probably, it’s just sheeple being sheeple. Plus, at the end of the day, it’s likely better that those particular people aren’t armed! Improvedclinch has that pic juxtaposed with a German one…not too subtle a message.
On the topic of fear and cowardice, CA at WRSA uses a classic line—“Fear is a liar.” That may not always be perfect, but I think it’s basically spot on. Staying aware of it has helped me quite a bit, but then I could be executed any moment now.
It is us who must stand up to make up for the cowardice of those who surround us. But they are unconscious and we are conscious. We are alive and they are dead. Which one would you rather be ?
re: that photo
A lot of assumptions being made here, in almost complete ignorance…
1) It’s assumed that anyone who would register all their guns would hand their guns in during a confiscation. A fairly reasonable assumption, but nowhere near 100%
2) It’s assumed the people in that line are cowards. I’d like to see someone here go to that line and randomly poke one of them in the nose.
3) It’s assumed that these guys are registering ALL their guns and ALL their magazines. This is a completely ridiculous assumption. People just aren’t that submissive or trusting; particularly gun owners. They always hold some in reserve.
You can go through life two ways. Think the worst of people, and you will probably have that confirmed in their interactions with you. Or, think the best of people, and receive better treatment in turn.
Defeatism is bad for us. Just think of a coach talking to a team before a big game. Does the coach say, “Most of you are cowards and losers, and probably will get shellacked in this game”? No – that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, he says what he can to prop them up and make them strong. We need to do the same.
To the dunce who wrote this article, Speak for yourself. You are a coward. Heck, you even call yourself a coward in your own words, but don’t use the word “we” when talking about what your article has to do with me, who is reading it. All your really doing is contradicting yourself. “we”, you sound like the tyrant pres. of his united states every time he makes a speech to the public, you know like “we” will. must, are. etc, etc. Sounds like to me your on the bandwagon.
Regarding that article on CT firearms registration. The ONLY way a law like that is enforced (as in you get convicted) is that it first must pass by a grand jury. Folks, if you serve on a grand jury, you are perfectly within your rights to vote to not charge (called “no bill” here). As a juror, you have the right to explain, prior to voting, why you feel the way that you do. something along the lines of reminding them of the 2nd amendment, victimless crimes, no intent, etc… thus in good conscience, YOU dont understand how anyone could vote to indict when the law of the land clearly supports this right. You can also vocally remind your fellow jurors, at the start of the proceedings, that your powers as part of a grand jury include indicting for any offense you may observe, even those not presented by the government (prosecutor.) if you are called for jury duty, or grand jury duty, review your state/county laws regarding grand jury duties.
Just found your blog. It brings up the central struggle, for me anyway, how to resist? I just caved on health insurance. The system is setup to gouge the uninsured. I can’t fight that myself, and i can’t take the financial risk (mostly because I am not rich enough to hire an army of lawyers to fight the inequities in the billing arrangements of hospitals/insurers. In this one case (health insurance), the sheep just don’t understand the drivers behind the criminally high cost of health care and health insurance, which are two different things. I suppose one small resistance I do often is whenever I hear someone talking about obamacare, or health care, I correct them that insurance isn’t health care, its prepaying for part of the doctors visit whether you need it or not. True insurance is something that is used in extraordinary circumstances, like when you total your car, not to pay for the oil change, or car wash. I use my own experience to illustrate the gross profits insurers will be gaining by way of government edict: I used to pay $289/mo. For catastrophic coverage. Now my all in cost is $1089/ mo. On my work policy (best deal if you can believe it). Private insurance would have been $1250/mo. (Yes Obama, 4x what I paid previously, 50% more than my mortgage, let alone cell hone bill). To add insult to injury, my deductibles and OOP expenses DOUBLE compared to my formerly catastrophic coverage. So, why did insurers spend $1,000,000,000 lobbying for obamacare? Can you say good investment? Bonus, if I went thru the exchange for private insurance, the same policy was $400 more a month, and my subsidy? $400. So, my observation, the government is willingly giving insurers a lot more money that they would collect from non exchange customers for the same product, for no good reason, other than payback for all the lobbying/campaign contributions. They should hang for this alone, yet….crickets, everywhere. Rant off. Sorry, boils my blood every time I think about it. There is so much I could do to improve the lot of my family and friends with the extra $8400/yr. I’m debating just saying FU to insurance and take my chances. Prior to my awakening, I did the math, I paid $89k insurance premiums before going catastrophic route. Really seems like an extension of the debt slavery tactic this government just loves.
Lawhobit, Thanks for the link to the documentary on the defense of Finland. It was well worth watching and demonstrates that the few and determined can indeed defeat the overwhelmingly powerful.
Their advantage though was their “togetherness” as a common people with the same heritage and language against a distinctly foreign invader.
How do we duplicate that togetherness when (as Pogo said) the enemy is us?
Bear, Yes indeed, like herding cats. As above, how do we bring togetherness and a common goal to all who correctly see the problem but all have different solutions. Is it possible and if so, desirable?
Gosh, I liked it quite a bit and saw nothing out of line at all. This is what I read: “When I write “we,” I don’t mean you. I probably don’t know you. I don’t know how brave or cowardly you may be. I suspect that the individuals reading this are likely to be more willing to stand up for themselves, their loved ones, and their principles than most. Still, we vary. Any one of us might be a lionheart in one circumstance and a lamb in another.”
I didn’t finish all the comments because I’m still confused about the reasons for all the butthurt? However, I will send it around to a few others asking for the reaction. Looking forward to part II
+ what EN said. I too am looking forward to the rest of the article, as these philosophical posts are my favorite.
If we lived closer, I would have The Dove run over with some wine and a cheery hug.
Count another +1 to EN’s comment. I’m also looking forward to Part II.
@EN: I read the same thing you did, and perceived it (I think) largely the same way. I think part of the “butthurt” is people taking this out of context. They read it and their mind hears an ad hominem personal attack instead of an abstract, philosophical essay.
It’s also possible they’re offended that Claire has the brazen audacity to call it like she sees it (on her own blog, no less – how dare she!!), without offering solutions. I guess they also missed the bit where Part II will have ideas for solutions.
@Claire: I thoroughly enjoyed this post. I found it to be factually accurate and pointed in its observations. I have trouble believing that people refuse to see how far we’ve fallen from the basic liberties this nation was founded on. While I can’t hardly wait for Part II, take as much time off as you need. The way I see it, this is your house; you don’t need our permission. 🙂
This piece of yours is the one you pulled in confusion after comments? I’ve just read your piece, not yet the comments. But yesterday, in a bad mood, I wrote the following:
What It’s Not
(Overheard in an Oregon med-marijuana shop.)
This—what you and I are doing right now—me showing you an official identification document, as well as a specific permission slip to acquire a plant—all of this–me showing, and you inspecting, recording and cataloging me and my documents—all of this being done in order that our masters don’t throw you and perhaps even me in jail (or worse) …..all of this, totally all of this run on sentence …might make grass these days here somewhat easier to get than it used to be.
But please, don’t confuse this with freedom.
Instead, what this recent “liberalization” represents is the full grown police state now firmly fastened even on our fringes.
The hippie generation (if ever there was such) has long since begun endorsing U.S. adventurism, so long as the foreign killing has the right sort of executive administering the peace (peace is war).
If hippies and all the rest of us now give in for whatever scraps of access to this plant which our masters might grant us—well, who can blame us?
But don’t mistake our present behavior (pass the brownies) for freedom. None of us alive have known it in our present bodies.
—–
Your column seemed perfectly of course to me. Oh well, on to the comments.
Perhaps we yet can learn, however.
If we can tear our eyes from the aging hippies, giggling and munching and crunching, off, and over the hill.
Perhaps we yet can learn, however.
If we can tear our eyes from the aging hippies, giggling and munching and crunching, off, and over the hill.
Great spot-on article. Why the confusion?
While many have their pet solutions, the effective means is already in place, and though in current practice has been gradually corrupted by government interference and/or disregarded by the citizenry, it can still be the means to restoration of Liberty and limited government.
Todd nailed it with mention of grand and trial jury duty.
Yeah, duty. To each other.
A neat peaceful nearly risk-free means to halting tyranny. Actually fairly easy too, just requires an investment of time to study then serve.
And, it requires somewhat minimal courage in order to participate.
Reading the works of Lysander Spooner is a good start.
The vast majority of American prosecutors are intent on one objective: winning convictions.
They “win” convictions in nearly all cases.
We let them win by our avoidance of jury duty.
The most important vote we have is as grand and/or trial jurors.
Accept the summons to jury duty. Once in the jury pool at the courthouse act like you don’t have two brain cells to rub together as you’re not likely to be chosen if you display anything resembling intelligence. Judges and prosecutors only want people that will act as rubberstamps serving as jurors.
Government prosecutors obtain felony indictments and convictions at trial only if we go along with their program.
Get on the jury, then pay attention, and refuse to indict or convict people accused of government-invented crimes that lack a victim injured by force or fraud, cannabis “crimes” being a prime example, though the list is very long and always expanding.
The really neat thing is that at trial just one juror’s steadfast not-guilty vote can hang the jury, and then the government has to start the trial process over again.
If this happens enough-as it did in the days of alcohol prohibition-the law will go away. Prosecutors tend to show little interest in prosecuting “crimes” where little chance exists of obtaining convictions.
But it may not come about as easily (alcohol prohibition only lasted some 13 years) now as it did then…
The real advantage the tyrants have in our so-called modern era is the use of plea-bargaining: the defendant pleads guilty and there is no trial.
The degree of corruption in the criminal justice system is such that over 90% of criminal cases never face the scrutiny of a jury, the kind of justice that the Founding Fathers established.
In fact, plea bargains were unknown to the Founding Fathers and would have been considered an abomination.
In our criminal justice system, plea bargains are an absolute necessity in our “modern” era of myriad thickets of laws and the many prisons that dot the landscape.
Plea bargains are sort of a mass-production approach to criminal justice.
The entire system would grind to a halt if, say, 15% or 20% of criminal defendants demanded trial by jury. This should be an obvious indication of the enacting of far too many laws that invent crimes out of behaviors that really aren’t criminal and would never have come about if common sense (it doesn’t appear to be all that common, at least to me) prevailed.
Most cases are resolved by the defendant pleading guilty, almost always under various modes of pressure exerted by government prosecutors (prosecutor meant complaining witness in the times of the Founding Fathers, government prosecutors are corruptive to justice and were instituted in the late 19th century). It can be a very dirty business. I know because I was processed through their judicial meat-grinder some years ago.
Prosecutors often intimidate defendants into guilty pleas by means including-but not limited to-stacking multiple bogus charges; indicting or threatening to indict loved ones or friends: threatening draconian sentences if a trial is insisted upon while offering much-reduced sentencing by accepting a plea bargain.
In addition to exerting pressure to plead guilty, the bogus charges and threats to indict give the prosecutor something to offer in exchange for the guilty plea-dismissal of some charges.
Judges exert pressure by denial of all or almost all pre-trial motions, regardless of merit. Judges also help to break a defendant by approval of prosecutorial misbehavior.
Defendants that can’t afford bail face the pressure of rotting in jail for long periods just waiting for trial. For those having not experienced being caged, it is a form of torture, very helpful in pressuring defendants to take a plea bargain.
In my own adventure in legal-land, realization through the pre-trial (which lasted nearly 3 years…that’s right-2 years and 11 months-I fought like hell…) court rulings that anything resembling a fair trial wasn’t going happen, I caved in to a plea bargain in order to: gain dismissal of the false indictment of my uninvolved girlfriend; be sentenced myself to probation rather than up to 5 years in prison; avoid the forfeiture of my home and farm-my Father had to write a six-figure check to the Sheriff’s office to seal the “deal” (can you spell E X T O R T I O N ?).
Defendants that insist upon exercising their right to trial by jury risk much harsher sentences as compared to those accepting plea bargains, to the point that even totally innocent people wind up pleading guilty, in order to be spared the possibility of often draconian sentencing.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise as nearly 100% of criminal cases that proceed to trial end in convictions, so even the innocent face a great probability of being convicted. It’s quite a stain on American Liberty that this area is one of the very few things government does with near-perfect efficiency…convicting and warehousing citizens in prisons, many of whom have not committed real crimes (real crimes being those causing injury to the person and/or property of non-consenting others).
On the appointed day of my trial I could read in the eyes of the potential jurors as they looked at me: “so this is who is responsible for interrupting my life, my stampede to food, drink and entertainment, let’s convict this guy in time to not miss supper and Dancing With The Stars”.
The lessor of evils was clear to me: conviction and a probable prison term, for myself and my totally uninvolved girlfriend, or take the plea and a sentence of probation for myself and a dismissal of charges for her (the court scheduled the dismissal hearing to occur just after the expiration of my time-window for appeal-i.e. she was held hostage in order to complete the cash transfer to the sheriff’s office).
Then there is the cost of defense. In my case, it amounted to tens of thousands of dollars out of my savings while the prosecution merely dipped into the public till. I was fortunate to have had savings-many defendants do not. They are given public defenders that usually only have time to work out a plea bargain.
The American justice system operates very similarly to the Soviet justice system under Joseph Stalin.
More on the grand jury.
The function of grand jury was supposed to operate as both a shield and as a sword.
It was supposed to shield the individual from wrongful, vindictive prosecution, or misapplication of law, or halt prosecution under laws that are themselves wrong.
As sword, it was to operate independently to indict wrongdoers, especially wrongdoers that happen to be government actors.
When grand juries came to be attended by government prosecutors , a development of the late 19th century, grand jury independence was lost, and grand jury results became whatever the government prosecutor desired. This orchestration by government prosecutors virtually assures corruption.
This explains the truism about indicting ham sandwiches…
This is why idiocy such as gun laws and the war on *some* drugs drones on…
This is why it is a rarity to see indictments of criminal behavior carried on by political critters, police officers, big bankers, the Wall Street crowd, the 1%, while the harshest treatment almost exclusively reserved for the rabble…
But though our rulers are evil they aren’t completely stupid. In order to forestall rebellion in reaction to corrupt grand jury proceedings, the occasional bone gets tossed into the mix-an Illinois Governor (whose name I won’t try to spell), a Martha Stewart, A Leona Helmsley-in order to mask the near-total corruption of the system.
The AmeriKan criminal justice system. They got two outta three correct: it is criminal; it is a system; justice is present in name only.
As currently practiced, why would we expect different results from an arrangement where judges, prosecutors, and police are all on the government payroll?
Unless we-many if not most of us-step up and do our duty as grand and/or trial jurors acting as individuals rather than tools of government.
I wonder why this has got side-tracked into a discussion of grand juries, which are pretty much irrelevant to the original post.
Claire is wrong, or at least has not proven her point.
1) “…we are a nation of cowards” is a collectivist statement. Already a problem…
Think about the toughest, least cowardly nation you can (if we must look at things collectively). Finland has been brought up, a good candidate. Could we call Finland “a nation of cowards”?
Sure we could. Even back during the Winter War it may have been so. That is, a large majority of Finns might have been unwilling to fight. That’s almost certainly true.
Well, if even Finland could reasonably be called a “nation of cowards”, then the phrase is meaningless. Every nation is a nation of cowards. Most people in every country are “furniture”. They don’t set the path; they just follow.
Lots of people figure 3% of the population are the relevant ones, on the freedom side anyway. Are we saying those 3% are cowards?
2) Talk about an individual, instead. Is he a coward, or not? Hard to say, isn’t it? The standard human operating procedure seems to be: “…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Or take it from Heinlein: “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.”
Is it being suggested that anyone who paid a tax or who got a driver’s license is a coward? Have all brave men through history, never in their lives done anything servile?
Few people know what they are capable of, because few people have really been tested. No one can really say for sure how he will act when the test comes. Very often, the quiet ones or the nonconformists turn out to be the most brave. Does America have a shortage of nonconformists?
Certainly, it is the aim of the ruling class, of every ruling class, to turn the people into sheep. But it doesn’t always take; and it only looks successful as long as no shocks are felt in the system, as long as everything is going along “normally”.
3) Are there no counter-indications? What about the failure of gun control? How many AR-15’s have been bought in the last decade – a rifle near useless for deer hunting? What does it mean, to buy a gun almost certain to be banned if a ban were attempted? Is that servile behavior? Why didn’t what happened to England and Australia, happen to us?
What about preppers? To me, this looks like a nation preparing for war. Is that what cowards do?
4) Are we a nation of cowards, or do we merely *look like* a nation of cowards, according to the Ministry of Propaganda? Isn’t that the message they would naturally want to promote? When you see an interview of some airline passenger saying “TSA is just trying to protect us,” how representative do you think that statement is? Do people really think the mainstream media is a reliable source of information? Or do they watch it to laugh at it, or to get the weather or the football scores?
I still don’t buy the premise.
Aren’t you indulging in generalities too, Paul, just as you suggest (accuse) Claire of doing? No… no one knows what will happen when/if war occurs. No one knows who will rise up to fight, and who will capitulate ― or run. I certainly hope your optimism proves correct.
But many people DO think the MSM is a reliable source of information, and the idiot box is frequently used to prove a point; viewers accept as fact what they see and hear. (Just think how many people believed in global warming ― and still do! ― until skeptics spoke up.) People believe what they’re told because they do not wish to think for themselves… or haven’t learned how… or ― being nice, gullible, social animals that we are ― they can’t comprehend why anyone would lie to them. Again (if we’re lucky, and IF your optimism holds true), people may be waking up. But I don’t think it’s fast enough to help us, it’s not fast enough to overcome the oppression that’s being imposed on us from the top.
Also: preppers come in all flavors, and not all of them are preparing for war; some are digging holes in which to hide. The fox goes to ground to get away from the hunter, not to grow sharper teeth.
“Are we a nation of cowards, or do we merely *look like* a nation of cowards, according to the Ministry of Propaganda?”
What other premise can people operate from except the obvious? When a man tells me “the TSA is just trying to protect us”, I have to think he believes what he’s saying until he says otherwise. When a man allows his 6-year-old daughter to be groped without objecting, I have to believe he’s afraid or just doesn’t care. (Take your pick.) It’s not pretty, but it does “look like” cowardice to me.
Well, gee, I’d say talk of jury duty is mainlining rather than being side-tracked…
We don’t even have control of local government, with little evidence it’s on the horizon. It is unrealistic to ponder correction at the national level under such circumstances.
Grand and trial jury duty happens to be the ultimate check and balance, a peaceful means for the people to place limitations on the most critical state powers-those of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment and execution, as well as a means to nullify bad law.
Americans, generally, are either too cowardly, too ignorant, or too damn lazy (probably a combination) to protect each other from the tyrannical tendencies of government with a means that sits mostly unused.
If somebody has a better idea than something already in place that just isn’t being utilized, I’m all ears…
As for Claire’s premise of cowardice, it appears to be spot on when history is taken in to account. Of course it’s an imperfect generality, open to nitpicking, but thorough honest thinking about it would seem to lead one to at least see that we’ve failed miserably at maintenance of individual Liberty. Whether through cowardice of whatever, we have F-ing failed. Naturally there will be those unwilling to share the blame. I admit I haven’t stepped up as much as I ought.
Look at the Declaration of Independence.
That list of complaints-with very minor modifications-is at minimum fully valid today to be presented to our homegrown tyrannical government.
Among the chief complaints was the corrupt English judicial system, which is why we have indictment by grand jury and trial by jury in the Bill of Rights. Over time we have allowed both to be corrupted almost beyond recognition, so that they have come full circle to resemble the British system complained of in the Declaration.
In fact, we ‘modern’ Americans have meekly submitted to much more government totalitarianism than our ancestors would not and did not submit to, resulting in the first revolution.
Just take each complaint and compare to what we put up with today. As one example taxes. Today’s taxes are many, many multitudes higher than those levied upon the Colonists.
[When a man tells me “the TSA is just trying to protect us”, I have to think he believes what he’s saying until he says otherwise.]
Well sure. But my point was, *who is he*? Is he the only one of twenty people interviewed who had a positive view of TSA? Is he maybe even a TSA employee? Don’t you think the Ministry of Propaganda is capable of crafting a message like this?
Where did you get the information that people find the MSM a reliable source of information? All my personal contacts say otherwise. Yeah, many still watch it, but that doesn’t mean they believe all of it.
“Where did you get the information that people find the MSM a reliable source of information? All my personal contacts say otherwise. Yeah, many still watch it, but that doesn’t mean they believe all of it.”
Maybe you’re talking mostly to the choir rather than the congregation. There are a few “choir members” around here who distrust the MSM also, but overall, the “congregation” is still willing to believe what they see and hear. It may be a head-in-the-sand attitude, but they’re adamant about it.
(And BTW ― the MSM includes the internet, which has become more “mainstream” than we here would like to admit. So many phone and tablet owners get their latest news [and Facebook] from the internet that it’s impossible to tell where TV ends and Smart Phones begin. If ever there was a “conspiracy”, I would say this is it ― the MSM is working to take over the internet. *We* may read freedom-oriented links, but the general public doesn’t.)
FWIW – everywhere I go, I hear folks talking about just this topic. In public, online… even my kids are able to speak intelligently on the topic and are aware/educated on the issues. I’m just one person.
That kind of “critical mass” will amount to something. Leaders will eventually rise – no has to organize a thing. It will come together all on it’s own. What is fascinating, is to see this topic come up in various ways through establishment media. The “spirit” is rising; patience is wearing thin. And yes, arguments and disagreements and misunderstandings are part & parcel of this much passion, finally getting a voice.
Whatever “it” finally becomes – it’s silly to think that this many “cats” can be herded into any pattern of movement or organization that has previously existed. It will be “something else” again.
It will definitely be interesting!
Regarding juries, I agree that they are the last refuge of justice (and that plea bargaining is corruption). The criminal trial from the Rodney King incident and the recent Zimmerman trial are perfect examples of a functioning jury system. In the Zimmerman case, the police chief was fired for failing to make an arrest in the absence of probable cause, the prosecuting attorney was replaced, the medical examiner was brought in from a different area of the state, and the judge did all she could to make a conviction more likely. She even had an “Aw, shit” look on her face when the verdict was announced. Sadly for Zimmerman, he now thinks he accomplished something by the acquittal when the real credit should go to his lawyers and expert witnesses, many of whom worked for free.
As to the desire to not have smart people on the jury, in general attorneys don’t want a highly educated person on the jury because of the fear that person will have overriding influence on the verdict; and the attorneys can’t be sure which way that person will go.
Regarding the MSM, I sometimes think of the following quote (which I tried unsuccessfully to look up, so I’ll have to paraphrase – sorry): People can be divided into three types – (1) those who are so naive that they believe everything they come into contact with in the media, (2) those who have become so cynical that they believe nothing they encounter in the media, and (3) those who realize that the majority of journalists are liars and scoundrels who occasionally tell the truth and therefore useful information can be gleaned from the media. It is only this third group that can be of any help for useful change. Mein Kampf, by A. Hitler