We Win When They Fire The First Shot https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/we-win-when-they-fire-the-first-shot/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:32:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265033128269303808
We Win When They Fire The First Shot https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/we-win-when-they-fire-the-first-shot/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:32:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265033128269303808
Jan 18, 2020, 10:00 AM You know what I learned in Ukraine that applies?
Fire is more effective than firearms, and doesn’t need courage or risk to do it’s job, like the energizer bunny it keeps on going.
It takes a few hundred men to fight – the rest of the crowd serves as human shields the government can’t act against.
Occupying Govt Buildings is more effective than fighting
Controlling roads in and out is more effective than defending buildings.
A city is full of cars with tires that make berms, burn, and generate smoke, and gasoline for use as weaponry. Anything on fire makes dramatic photos and footage.
The government runs on water pressure, electricity, gasoline, both of which are in short supply, and without which there is little command and control.
Politicians, Bureaucrats, Military and Police are People Too – and have families they care for more than their jobs.
If you make clear reasonable demands, people don’t imagine the worst possible out come, and have incentive to settle.
Every single day you siege, you learn.
All I want out of the next few ‘attempts’ is to learn from the opposition. Because all that’s going to happen going forward is a continuous stream of escalation. Antifa(Black Hats) and the Right(Red Hats) have the same enemy, and if we separate into blue cities and red territories, we have the same goals. The enemy is the state and financial sector. Edit
Jan 18, 2020, 10:00 AM You know what I learned in Ukraine that applies?
Fire is more effective than firearms, and doesn’t need courage or risk to do it’s job, like the energizer bunny it keeps on going.
It takes a few hundred men to fight – the rest of the crowd serves as human shields the government can’t act against.
Occupying Govt Buildings is more effective than fighting
Controlling roads in and out is more effective than defending buildings.
A city is full of cars with tires that make berms, burn, and generate smoke, and gasoline for use as weaponry. Anything on fire makes dramatic photos and footage.
The government runs on water pressure, electricity, gasoline, both of which are in short supply, and without which there is little command and control.
Politicians, Bureaucrats, Military and Police are People Too – and have families they care for more than their jobs.
If you make clear reasonable demands, people don’t imagine the worst possible out come, and have incentive to settle.
Every single day you siege, you learn.
All I want out of the next few ‘attempts’ is to learn from the opposition. Because all that’s going to happen going forward is a continuous stream of escalation. Antifa(Black Hats) and the Right(Red Hats) have the same enemy, and if we separate into blue cities and red territories, we have the same goals. The enemy is the state and financial sector. Edit
Jan 22, 2020, 1:47 PM by Noah J Revoy GSRRM is the weapon of choice for the left. They used it to conquer the physically and martially superior men of the west. Good news folks, we have fully discovered the secrets of how their weapons work. We can defeat it. We can become 100% immune to this manipulation. Without GSRRM the left is POWERLESS. I can teach you how to be immune to manipulation. DM me. Follow Curt Doolittle, John Mark et all.
Jan 24, 2020, 10:32 AM Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is paid for by the state’. The discussion at the time was that given the vastness of the territory, the sparsity of the population, and the limited funds, that they could not at the time afford to pay for it, and that men might not show up given the cost of travel to staging areas, and that they would need to wait until such training was affordable, and therefore they must trust that the men will do it themselves (which they largely did). The english did this with the longbow in that every sunday after church boys were required (and did) spend three hours shooting the bow. This what (like the Russians are doing) we need to restore again – schools or churches or town halls where men practice regularly at the local level. By the regimental period the regiments were paid for and self sustaining in England. And this is my suggestion going forward – restoration of the regiments and the fraternal order that comes from them. (My suspicion is that we can reform religion and civil society by working through the regiments as much as through school systems.) The purpose of a trained militia is to (a) prevent the need of a standing army because (b) standing armies had been used to oppress the people. So, in keeping with european tradition a small number of professional warriors (the aristocracy) would command a large number of unprofessional riflemen (soldiers, footsoldiers). Which would balance the power between the people and the state ensuring that the state didn’t get out of hand, and insuring that the men were invested in the sense of control of their government.
Jan 24, 2020, 10:32 AM Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is paid for by the state’. The discussion at the time was that given the vastness of the territory, the sparsity of the population, and the limited funds, that they could not at the time afford to pay for it, and that men might not show up given the cost of travel to staging areas, and that they would need to wait until such training was affordable, and therefore they must trust that the men will do it themselves (which they largely did). The english did this with the longbow in that every sunday after church boys were required (and did) spend three hours shooting the bow. This what (like the Russians are doing) we need to restore again – schools or churches or town halls where men practice regularly at the local level. By the regimental period the regiments were paid for and self sustaining in England. And this is my suggestion going forward – restoration of the regiments and the fraternal order that comes from them. (My suspicion is that we can reform religion and civil society by working through the regiments as much as through school systems.) The purpose of a trained militia is to (a) prevent the need of a standing army because (b) standing armies had been used to oppress the people. So, in keeping with european tradition a small number of professional warriors (the aristocracy) would command a large number of unprofessional riflemen (soldiers, footsoldiers). Which would balance the power between the people and the state ensuring that the state didn’t get out of hand, and insuring that the men were invested in the sense of control of their government.
Jan 26, 2020, 8:07 AM 1) —“Hi Curt, wondering what your thoughts are on ostracism as an effective way to discourage degenerate behaviour. It’s something Stef points to and I’m beginning to see it as a rather feminine method”— Well, I think both pre and post are valulable in the sense that I think it is very important to preserve both ostracism AND to require demonstraion of competence for inclusion. In other words, everyone may require via negativa protection under natural law, but fewer people are capable of via positiva exercise of political judgement, and there are some if not many people who must be ostracized (lose citizenship, benefits, liberty, or life) in defense of others – and that we have been far too tolerant by ending the general eugenic process provided by hanging a lot of malcontents every year. 2) —“Re: the successful march, important to be involved in such an historic moment. When shit goes down it will be remembered as “the first peaceful demonstration of American patriotism”, or some such. Year after year of Antifa antics are met by 20000 armed men. It’s beautiful”— The point is (a) we can show up in large numbers, even on a work day (b) antifa is always the source of violence, not us (c) c’ville was antifa not the right. So I think we succeeded in making our points: 1) we have to show up in large numbers, 2) we have to use the rights framework not the identity framework, even though the result is the same. 3) revolution comes. 3) —“I’m interested to know your thoughts on the cultural importance of cinema and the shift from written to visual communication”— Cinema combines the play and photography, to produce greater accessibility, and extraordinary beauty, but the era with which we produced cinematic “literature” ended by the 1960’s. And we are in full postmodern anti-civilizational decline in the arts just as the jews intended. Just as they destroyed the arts and literature of the ancient world. The most important feature of cinema otherwise has been the concentration of income in the cinema industry thereby depleting the rest of the arts of income and funding. So between the marxist, cultural marxist, postmodernist, feminist, denialist undermining of civilization; cinematic decline in post-lit screenwriting; collapse in funding of the arts; the use of panel products in construction of our buildings and therefore, incompatibility of art and architecture; and the perception of building spaces as temporary rather than intergenerational – cinema has been good and bad. But we are seeing the collapse of the income model. I have a fairly clear view of the future of the arts if we end the american empire and especially if we end copyright and substitute creative commons, then I think we will deprive the industry of any chance of funding, and this will force the correction we are looking for.
Jan 26, 2020, 8:07 AM 1) —“Hi Curt, wondering what your thoughts are on ostracism as an effective way to discourage degenerate behaviour. It’s something Stef points to and I’m beginning to see it as a rather feminine method”— Well, I think both pre and post are valulable in the sense that I think it is very important to preserve both ostracism AND to require demonstraion of competence for inclusion. In other words, everyone may require via negativa protection under natural law, but fewer people are capable of via positiva exercise of political judgement, and there are some if not many people who must be ostracized (lose citizenship, benefits, liberty, or life) in defense of others – and that we have been far too tolerant by ending the general eugenic process provided by hanging a lot of malcontents every year. 2) —“Re: the successful march, important to be involved in such an historic moment. When shit goes down it will be remembered as “the first peaceful demonstration of American patriotism”, or some such. Year after year of Antifa antics are met by 20000 armed men. It’s beautiful”— The point is (a) we can show up in large numbers, even on a work day (b) antifa is always the source of violence, not us (c) c’ville was antifa not the right. So I think we succeeded in making our points: 1) we have to show up in large numbers, 2) we have to use the rights framework not the identity framework, even though the result is the same. 3) revolution comes. 3) —“I’m interested to know your thoughts on the cultural importance of cinema and the shift from written to visual communication”— Cinema combines the play and photography, to produce greater accessibility, and extraordinary beauty, but the era with which we produced cinematic “literature” ended by the 1960’s. And we are in full postmodern anti-civilizational decline in the arts just as the jews intended. Just as they destroyed the arts and literature of the ancient world. The most important feature of cinema otherwise has been the concentration of income in the cinema industry thereby depleting the rest of the arts of income and funding. So between the marxist, cultural marxist, postmodernist, feminist, denialist undermining of civilization; cinematic decline in post-lit screenwriting; collapse in funding of the arts; the use of panel products in construction of our buildings and therefore, incompatibility of art and architecture; and the perception of building spaces as temporary rather than intergenerational – cinema has been good and bad. But we are seeing the collapse of the income model. I have a fairly clear view of the future of the arts if we end the american empire and especially if we end copyright and substitute creative commons, then I think we will deprive the industry of any chance of funding, and this will force the correction we are looking for.
Jan 26, 2020, 4:25 PM
—“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—
Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity. it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it. “can you warranty my life? No only I can.” “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.” “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.” Edit
Jan 26, 2020, 4:25 PM
—“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—
Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity. it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it. “can you warranty my life? No only I can.” “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.” “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.” Edit