Constitutional militia movement

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Pretty much

Are there or are there not U.S. forces still in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Has there been any major withdraw of troops?

[Alan]

Conversely, have there been any further major incursions? Do civilians still die by the hundreds per day?

[Starke von Oben]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Militias are made up of white supremacists, wacko nut jobs, and of course, inbred hillbillies who need more chlorine in their gene pool. Not the kind of people you want to encourage to carry military grade firepower and run around anywhere.

A military is an organization authorized by its nation to use force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

So I should just lay down my guns and cower behind protest signs and other people?

What happens when those you protest get tired of hearing you protest?

I'm not condemning protesting as a form of changing things in the government,but I will add that protests will not work against a Government that see's nothing wrong with what it's doing (The last eight years in the U.S. for example).

Yes because past protests that have made a difference have always just encouraged those in charge to do what they really wanted to do all along *eyeroll*

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

So I should just lay down my guns and cower behind protest signs and other people?

What happens when those you protest get tired of hearing you protest?

I'm not condemning protesting as a form of changing things in the government,but I will add that protests will not work against a Government that see's nothing wrong with what it's doing (The last eight years in the U.S. for example).

The new President is looking a hell of a lot like the old President to me.

Yeah the civil rights movement and women's suffrage were just made up of cowards who just didn't have the balls to go out in a blaze of glory or sit on their fat asses exchanging conspiracy theories.

And the government during their times totally didn't put up a fight at all.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by SweetJane

Oh, and Deadmanwalking, watch "The Take"... I thouroughly beleive that anyone who really is interested in the constitutionalism movement for the right reasons should learn about anarchosyndicalism. These people re-occupy factories and keep the cops away with slingshots. firepower is not as necessary as people think. Look through guerilla warfare manuals- guns AREN'T that necessary. It's about tactics and organization.

Keeping the chinese(I cant remember what country that was in exactly) cops away is one thing, but when it comes down to it that isn't going to stop a determined force, and most certainly not the military. Not all enemies are as stupid as the villans of home alone movies. Just look at the war in iraq for a moment, even with guns AND traps, and tactics, they're still losing the war. I have little doubt they would be doing alot worse if they didnt have guns, which is why the military is trying to get the guns off the streets there.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Saya

I'm just going to get on my high horse here and say you don't need a gun to suddenly have courage against your government, and its stupid to say so. They have tanks, dude. Your little hand gun is going to do fuck all in the face of organized government. Especially when a lot of other Americans like the government just fine. And like Sternn said look at the people advocating a militia, its all whackjobs and teabaggers and white supremacists. While I'm aware lots in the left want to organize their own militias, there is a bigger proportion of them who know that activism rather than futile violence and fear-mongering is far more effective.

Did I say that activism didn't have it's place?

No I did not.

Did I say Violence is the only way?

No I did not.

I stated that when activism fails it should have a bit of copper and lead to back it up.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Did I say that activism didn't have it's place?

No I did not.

Did I say Violence is the only way?

No I did not.

I stated that when activism fails it should have a bit of copper and lead to back it up.

Funny how you don't participate in activism but are so gung ho in skipping the entire process straight to the violence.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Saya

Funny how you don't participate in activism but are so gung ho in skipping the entire process straight to the violence.

If I was trying to skip the activism and go straight to the violence you guys would've most likely seen me on the news by now.

But I'm only advocating violence as a last line of DEFENSE (When everything else fails) not the first line of OFFENSE (Before anything is even mentioned)

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

If I was trying to skip the activism and go straight to the violence you guys would've most likely seen me on the news by now.

But I'm only advocating violence as a last line of DEFENSE (When everything else fails) not the first line of OFFENSE (Before anything is even mentioned)

Dude, there is no violent offensive coming. I don't know what so appealing to you about the dream that the government wants to send us into camps or whatever, but its not going to happen. Shit, even the Iranian government couldn't do much to stop the activists since they were impossible to silence thanks to technology, think of what a huge advantage we'd have if it ever came to blows.

[SweetJane]

Originally Posted by Renatus

Keeping the chinese(I cant remember what country that was in exactly) cops away is one thing, but when it comes down to it that isn't going to stop a determined force, and most certainly not the military. Not all enemies are as stupid as the villans of home alone movies. Just look at the war in iraq for a moment, even with guns AND traps, and tactics, they're still losing the war. I have little doubt they would be doing alot worse if they didnt have guns, which is why the military is trying to get the guns off the streets there.

Argentina, actually. And I don't think you're taking a very accurate look at the situation- can we win an all-out war with the government of the united states(if for some reason that happens under this new fascist state that everyone's up in arms about)? Fuck no! What would that even MEAN?

The point is that class war is the only war. We need to start taking back the means of production, not worrying about weather or not we're allowed to have guns. Produce them yourself if they're so important. Argentina is a perfect case study for what's happening in America- it's a rich country gone poor and the ugly face of capitalism can't hide itself with all the botox in the world... but for some reason people cling to the irrationality of the rugged individual and his guns the same way we can't seem to get past the irrationality of creationism.

The only protests that actually work are the ones that actually stop buisiness as usual. It's not FIREPOWER that counts. It's MONEY and PRODUCTION that count. Direct action is the only way to solve problems.

And saya is right... there is no violent offense coming, except the same barrage of cruelty that has gone reletively unchallenged for so long against the working people.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by SweetJane

The only protests that actually work are the ones that actually stop buisiness as usual. It's not FIREPOWER that counts. It's MONEY and PRODUCTION that count. Direct action is the only way to solve problems.

I'm sure Osama Bin Ladin would probobly say that firepower is direct action, and given what happened on September 11th I can definately say it can stop business as usual. Not that I'm suggesting somthing that drastic, but it is one very good example to the contrary.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

If I was trying to skip the activism and go straight to the violence you guys would've most likely seen me on the news by now.

But I'm only advocating violence as a last line of DEFENSE (When everything else fails) not the first line of OFFENSE (Before anything is even mentioned)

Then you should only start discussing militias when:

1. You have a real issue to deal with, not just a 'what if the government did this'.

2. You tried through peaceful protest to solve the real issue, once you have one.

Right now you and anyone else advocating a militia are just pissing in the wind, getting ready for something that may or may not happen and automatically assuming your protest and other non-violent resistance will fail.

Also, going back to something Saya touched on, think about Waco. Those guys had a compound, lots of guns, explosives, etc. Look how much good it did them. The US government has tanks and jets. Take your little rifle out in the woods and dance around all ye want, at the end of the day if push does come to shove, yer still fecked.

All you doing, or anyone for that matter, when advocating militias is stiring up bad sentiment and giving false hope in a losing cause. Until you have a real cause backed by the support of the masses PLUS been stopped at every non-violent attempt to make things right, then advocating an armed militia is just plain silly.

[SweetJane]

Originally Posted by Renatus

I'm sure Osama Bin Ladin would probobly say that firepower is direct action, and given what happened on September 11th I can definately say it can stop business as usual. Not that I'm suggesting somthing that drastic, but it is one very good example to the contrary.

I thought they hijacked a plane with box cutters. That sounds like a pretty organized group to me, and they used the bastard child of guerilla warfare- terrorism- for their means. The tactics are aproximately the same, except terrorism requires that the targets are civilians. So I don't see how it's an argument to the contrary, just because they're goals weren't noble.

1. What does that have to do with armed militias in the United States?
2. What does this war on the "fascist dictatorship" in America look like? Are you saying we should destroy our resources to keep the 'government' from getting them, rather than learn to apportion them according to need, like rational adults?

[SweetJane]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

All you doing, or anyone for that matter, when advocating militias is stiring up bad sentiment and giving false hope in a losing cause. Until you have a real cause backed by the support of the masses PLUS been stopped at every non-violent attempt to make things right, then advocating an armed militia is just plain silly.

Couldn't agree more. I get just as tired of wet liberals calling themselves pacifists without even knowing what it means (thereby allowing malitia minded nutjobs to say that it is an inneffective strategy). It doesn't mean refusing to fight while simply sitting on your ass praying for the world to change.

Gandhi STARTED trouble with the unjust government. And he GOT trouble from the unjust government. He and his followers took a whole lot of beat-downs -people DIED- in the name of non-violence. And their tactics were direct-action protests. If you can show that a law is unjust, and all of a sudden that crazy guy on tv getting beaten and murdered becasue he refuses to obey an unjust law is your Uncle Tony, what are the chances that you're going to follow that law? And how many people can the government actually arrest? Glen Beck doesn't understand the irony (or maybe he does, Fox's program titled 'war on wealth' is a clear statement of its intent of class war against the poor) in saying that "we have them surrounded". It's obvious that he is one of THEM, the few priveliged who control so much of our wealth, and who have influence on the uneducated, and repeatedly convince Americans to fuck themselves in the ass.

As a people we should be united in overcoming the inequality inherant in our system of corporate greed, which is perpetuated by ignorance and fear- not in creating more unnessecary conflict for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by SweetJane

I thought they hijacked a plane with box cutters. That sounds like a pretty organized group to me, and they used the bastard child of guerilla warfare- terrorism- for their means. The tactics are aproximately the same, except terrorism requires that the targets are civilians. So I don't see how it's an argument to the contrary, just because they're goals weren't noble.

1. What does that have to do with armed militias in the United States?
2. What does this war on the "fascist dictatorship" in America look like? Are you saying we should destroy our resources to keep the 'government' from getting them, rather than learn to apportion them according to need, like rational adults?

The post is merely meant to counter yours, it was not directly related to the earlier one. You said money and production are what count, and that direct action is the only way to solve problems, or in mathematical way of putting it(for the sake of simplicity leading to a greater understanding of one another's point) money+production=direct action. My example shows that money+production=direct action= firepower.

I hope this helps your understanding of the point I am trying to get across, if not then I apologize in advance for any headaches this may cause. I have been up rather late tonight.

[SweetJane]

You didn't answer either of my questions and you refused to aknowledge that "firepower" in the sense of having the right to own a weapon did not in any way help or hinder the 9/11 terrorists.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by SweetJane

You didn't answer either of my questions and you refused to aknowledge that "firepower" in the sense of having the right to own a weapon did not in any way help or hinder the 9/11 terrorists.

Ah my apologies then, lets see if we can get somewhere with this post of mine.

Ah well they didn't get to the level of power they were at on 9/11 threatening people with sticks and stones, well as far as we know, who knows maybe those ak-47s are fakes and they do use sticks and stones(I'm in a bit of a chipper mood right now).

As for the second question, I dont see how anything I said was directly involved with economics, maybe somthing was indirectly involved but in this day and age of money that can be said of all things. What I just realized might be a better way of saying this and money and power are two different things, in peace, war, and all things inbetween. In peace money controls how resources are distributed. In war power is what controls the distribution of resources. History has shown war comes from a suprising variety of places, even from one's own government.

[SweetJane]

Originally Posted by Renatus

What I just realized might be a better way of saying this and money and power are two different things in peace, war, and all things inbetween.

To say that money and power are two different things does not change the fact that those IN POWER have MONEY. But that's also wrong.

In peace money controls how resources are distributed.

In 'peace' the workers are exploited to make the highest profit for the person or person(s) who own the corporations that supply goods during peacetime. They use their money to purchase airtime and advertising space to convince the people that consumption or societal acceptance of their product is the only way to be an active citizen.

It's not the money that controls how resources are allotted; it's the richest tier who own the MONEY and the RESOURCES.

In war power is what controls the distribution of resources.

In 'war' the workers are exploited to make the highest profit for the person or person(s) who own the corporations that supply goods during war... Oh, wait, this sounds familiar.

History has shown war comes from a suprising variety of places, even from one's own government.

So really, it IS about class.

[SweetJane]

as for the AK47 comment, look to my previous post about active non-violence. Besides, they got to that level of power because America didn't want the Russians to win Afganistan. Look! Astro-turfing all over history! You also might want to look up a little term called cointelpro- and is the US militia movement ever swarming in it, just like any other movement that might try to destroy capitalism OR the state! I can't wait until the neo-nazis and the militerized right become the new crips and bloods!

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by SweetJane

To say that money and power are two different things does not change the fact that those IN POWER have MONEY. But that's also wrong.



In 'peace' the workers are exploited to make the highest profit for the person or person(s) who own the corporations that supply goods during peacetime. They use their money to purchase airtime and advertising space to convince the people that consumption or societal acceptance of their product is the only way to be an active citizen.

It's not the money that controls how resources are allotted; it's the richest tier who own the MONEY and the RESOURCES.



In 'war' the workers are exploited to make the highest profit for the person or person(s) who own the corporations that supply goods during war... Oh, wait, this sounds familiar.



So really, it IS about class.

I would counter, if your argument hadn't gotten completely off topic of the topic of this thread into somthing I dont like discussing. Sort of like a game of dominos, lets say the topic of this thread was 1, my arguments were a 1|2 piece, stern's was a 1|3 piece, lets say yours is a 2|3 piece, I'm sure you have a valid argument, but I like to keep using dominos with 1. Just to note that was just a crude analogy, dont try to think I'm trying to start an argument on that now I'm just trying to express how I feel about where you're going.

[SweetJane]

But it's NOT off-topic. The topic is right-wing militerism; i.e. Libertarianism/ anarcho-capitalism.

Deadmanwalking said DISCUSS.

I am discussing the inherant flaw in Libertarianism, and offereing the solution- anarcho-syndicalism (anarchy has, after all, since its conception been anti-capitalist).

I'm sorry you didn't get a hard-line communist(statist) to debate this with you.

I beleive in neither capitalism nor the state.

Counter me or don't.

Or, you know, do some actual research into history instead of letting Fox News tell you the highlights.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by SweetJane

But it's NOT off-topic. The topic is right-wing militerism; i.e. Libertarianism/ anarcho-capitalism.

Deadmanwalking said DISCUSS.

I am discussing the inherant flaw in Libertarianism, and offereing the solution- anarcho-syndicalism (anarchy has, after all, since its conception been anti-capitalist).

I'm sorry you didn't get a hard-line communist(statist) to debate this with you.

I beleive in neither capitalism nor the state.

Counter me or don't.

Or, you know, do some actual research into history instead of letting Fox News tell you the highlights.

Ok well you went off topic from the part of the thread that I was interested in, so I surrender the floor to you. Now, today ontop of my regular cookie offer I can offer some fresh, cold, unpasturized apple cider fresh from the orcherds. Would you like either?

[SweetJane]

Cool, yeah. Sounds fine.

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by SweetJane

Cool, yeah. Sounds fine.

What sort of cookie though?