THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 636, September 11, 2011
"Change is coming. Peace is coming."
Send Letters to email@example.com
A Third Party Heard From
Now that our faux president has had his say, and the Stupid Party, as well, here's a genuine libertarian take on putting the pieces back together:
"Recovery: 'The Plan'"
By L. Neil Smith
Pass it on ...
L. Neil Smith
Was that worth reading?
Dear Readers of TLE, Michael Bradshaw, L. Neil, and Ken:
The effectiveness of communication is the signal that one recieves in return. If the signal you get back is not the one you were hoping for then your communication is flawed. Thus, my communication is very flawed. So on that note, understand that I am, above all else, trying to communicate. I am guilty of taking the wrong approach. I know that now and I am here to make amends. I am guilty of being way too eager to find a solution. I am alarmed out of my wits by the accelerating march towards the End Of It All for everything. Everything we've cherished and taken for granted is now in very real danger of being yanked away, maybe not forever, but for longer than any of us will still be around to see it returned to us in any tangible form. So while we've still got a chance, it seems to me that the only option left is to make sure that THEY DON'T WIN.
I am an imperfect human being, probably the world's most imperfect human being and I'm more wrong than I'm right. The only saving grace I have is that when I'm wrong, I am quick to admit it and make amends. The stakes are too high to allow myself to continue to be a force for division and animosity among the very people that are Liberty's last hope. I've been trying to share, in an imperfect way, things that I know that might prove to be useful.
I was reading the very old classic of "conspiracy literature" today while babysitting my girlfriend's kids called "None Dare Call It Conspiracy." I was bowled over by just how RIGHT everything in that book has turned out to be today in 2011. Every program that those authors were warning us of 40 years ago (the book came out in 1971) is now reality today. What really struck me the hardest was this little insight: "During the nineteenth century the leading financiers of the metropolitan East often cut one another's financial throats, but as their Western and rural victims started to organize politically, the "robber barons" saw that they had a "community of interest" toward which they must work together to protect themselves from thousands of irate farmers and up and coming competitors." Now what that says to me is this: the huge financial interests of that period saw that there was more to be gained by unifying and working together than by staying in competition with each other. They began to cooperate towards a "community of interests" rather than compete and become the prey of better competitors.
The point being: the enemy we are facing today came to the conclusion that there was more to be gained through unity than division. So they unified. They set aside their differences, agreed on a game plan that they could all get behind and moved forward on a singular front. And look what they've done with that unity ever since.
So it seems to me that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. To effectively oppose them, the opposition needs to unify. And I can't understand why the Freedom Mongers refuse to unify. It seems to me that this late into the game, the only choice left is to unify or we're all doomed. So please enlighten me on this incongruency. Why don't the varying Liberty activists, despite how they label themselves, see the logic in seeking a consensus they can all get behind and unify around? A divided house is an ineffective house.
I don't understand this and I want to understand it because the solution to this problem is probably where the answer lies. And the answer to this question will help me to write a better field manual for the resistance. No more criticisms of libertarians in the text; that is completely counterproductive and causes unneccessary divisionwhich is exactly what the New World Order wants us to do. They want us to fight amongst ourselves.
Also, Michael Bradshaw's lengthy attack on my resistance ideas mentioned something about 5th Generation Warfare. I am completely unfamiliar with this concept so if any of you could point me to the article or articles which lay out what this is and how it works, I'm all ears. I'm eager to see if this is something I can work into my resistance paradigm. I DO know the resistance paradigm. It generally works if there is both unity of purpose and a titanic will to resist present in the participants. One maybe but not both of those components are present in the current resistance. There is a resistance out there. The fact that there are Liberty activists at all demonstrates that there is a resistance. But it is unorganized and it has no unity of purpose.
Which doesn't bode well for the outcome should this remain the norm. We all know what THEY want to achieve. The Georgia Guidestones lay out the objectives clearly: no more than 500,000,000 people will be allowed to live on the planet. Which means six and a half billion of us are earmarked for elimination. (UN Agenda 21)
And on that note, I'll just go back to my website and stay there. I want to be part of the solution not part of the problem. I apologize for alienating anyone here. If anyone wants to talk and share ideas, you all know where to find me: Russellville, Arkansas or firstname.lastname@example.org. I'm from Colorado originally, circumstances have placed me in Arkansas; I have a nice 12 acre spread here that will make a great survivalist retreat but I do hope to return to Colorado ultimately. But in the mean time, finding myself in the middle of 300 miles of armed hillbillies is comforting when it comes to the thought of plots to confiscate guns. These good ole boys would never stand for that. And, yeah, country folks are different than city folks. That's a fact.
Gerald A Montgomery
To which Michael Bradshaw replied:
Dear Mr. Montgomery,
Just a quick note, as I am pooped and about to go to bed.
First, take it easy, as I do not need to be appeased. You and I see some things differently; although we seem to have similar, if not the same goals. I am not yet entitled to a firm opinion on this, as I do not have a clear vision of what yours is. Perhaps time and further contributions to TLE will tell.
My goal for the war that we find ourselves in with the powers of the state is a long-term stable "anarchy-n-order". For information on the self regulating nature of the anarchic free market see "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt and/or a rather dry intro to the basic principles (after the first 1K words) in my TLE article "Home of The Slave?" at www.usrepeals.org in the TLE archive. While you may find that it has a familiar tone, I do not, by any measure, equate you with Master Steinsvold. I think that you need some work, while he is simply a lost cause from word one.
For background on the first 4 generations of modern war see the William Lind archive at LewRockwell.com as referenced in my papers at the House of Repeals TLE archive with links. That is what I was referring to in my critique of your tactical papers at TLE.
For the exposition of Fifth Generation War (5GW) strategy see my papers at the House of Repeals TLE archive starting with the forth one "Election and Revolution". I feel qualified to comment on 5GW, as I invented it in 2003-2004 and first published it in the fall of that year at TLE.
As with almost all invention I cobbled it together from previous art and the fundamental work of others. In order to see far, one must often, as Einstein said "stand on the shoulders of giants". In this case, Jim Bell did the breakthrough work for phase two of 5GW. See references in my papers.
The above is depth in occidental thought. For breadth through other cultures and other ways of looking at any problem of this general nature I recommend starting with Lao Tsu for knowledge of the self and Sun Tsu for "The Art of War", which is the title of his book on that subject. See also Judo, the art of gentleness in combat, which is applicable to both strategy and tactics. This last is a foundation stone of 5GW. An application of the principle of safety margin to the application of the principle of least action. And that last may take some time and study to see. Ah, well.
All the Best
Was that worth reading? Then why not:
BATFE's pretext for regulating guns is to keep fireaarms out of the hands of criminals. That is, they are supposed to keep weapons out of the hands of people who wish to acquire them specifically for the purpose of violating other people's rights. Yet In Operation Fast and Furious and Operation Castaway ATFE facilitated the transfer of firearms to gangs who use drug money to finance kidnapping and other extortion plans and are threatening governments alleged to be friendly to the US. Now it appears that BATFE with FBI connivance was facilitating the transfer of firearms to criminals in Indiana.
Perhaps we need one very specific gun control law and no others, Government Agencies and agents should not facilitate the transfer of guns to people who they know intend to use them to rob, rape, murder, and extort. Perhaps if ATFE concentrated on this they could stop spending so much time and energy in busting honest folk on technicalities and with falsified evidence presented to biased judges.
This, of course, is based on the questionable assumption that BATFE's primary purpose in enforcing gun laws is to prosecute criminals, not criminalize honest folk.
Was that worth reading?