Violence vs Non Violence

[Lloyd Danforth]

but in a way that shows them the dignity that they are entitled to as a person (I emphasize, "as a person" because I don't think that we ought to dignify their pretentious offices.)

They may enter the discussion as innocents, ignorant of the harm they cause and worthy of some dignity.  After the discussion, if they persist in the harm they aren't.

Twice you have claimed Russell's CD has 'worked'.  Are you saying Russell has caused authorities, he has come into contact with, to quit their jobs?

[MaineShark]

I think the point that needs to be made is that many of us stick our necks out to deal with "authority figures" in a way that they will respect.  Not in a way that yields to them or caves on our position, but in a way that shows them the dignity that they are entitled to as a person (I emphasize, "as a person" because I don't think that we ought to dignify their pretentious offices.)

They aren't people.  They give up their humanity when the initiate force against others.

Animals attack each other whenever they feel the desire to do so.  It's nature.  Human beings do not.  Human beings never initiate force against each other.  It is our only trait that distinguishes us from animals.

Frustration with the system is normal; we all feel it.  But those who are part of the system are just as much victims of it as we are. In many ways, their plight is even worse, because they may not even realize that the system has locked them into a never-ending cycle of monstrous violence.

The kitten-stompers' plight is worse than that of their victims?  I can think of a few people who might disagree.  Well, if they hadn't been burned to death a few years ago, that is...

They can (and likely will) take each threat seriously, and to the extent that we make these idle threats, to that same extent we lose their respect.

Uh, so you're saying that we should make threats and then carry them out, so that they are not idle?  I'm presuming that was a typo, knowing your thoughts on violence... (for the record, I haven't noted any threats)

In any case, I do not seek the respect of monsters.

Russell's civil disobedience works because the feds know, for a fact, that he is not violent, and therefore they must sacrifice their legitimacy to enforce their system.  It becomes a no win situation for them.  Once you start threatening them, all you do is supply them a reason (in their own hearts) to carry out their rules, regulations and edicts.

I respect Russell, but as Lloyd asks, what has resulted from his actions?

Russell's nonviolence civil disobedience works because it uses the most powerful tool possible against the perpetrators:  their own conscience.

Someone who can do what the Feds do on a regular basis has no conscience.  It's like the old argument about using lethal force in defense against violence done by the mentally ill, where one person claims that the perpetrator might be cured and restored to his human sensibilities, and the other person simply points out that if some miraculous cure took place, the perpetrator would promptly suicide, unable to bear the memory of his acts.

Or do you possibly think you can outshoot them?

Individually?  No.  As a people?  Yes.  Unquestionably yes.

Joe

[powerchuter]

I didn't start this thread (it was peeled off a different thread) and the only reason I even weighed in on the subject is when I see repeated references to killing people...

I am not a pacifist. I own firearms and have been using them since I was a young boy. I was trained by the military and volunteered to serve.

However when over a period of time I read posts that refer to assasination and murder I will not let it continue unchallenged.

A man from Penn. comes to the forum to find others that can sympathize with his situation and someone tells him to kill the lady in the town office because she wants his SSN for a land transfer.

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=6570.msg141419#msg141419
Shoot the Bastards...
All of them...

Or the following example

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8192.msg145208#msg145208
This post is not made with the intention of creating undue paranoia but you should be very cautious about making a list of any sort...regarding public officials...of any stripe...

The jack-booted child snatchers/molesters will do anything and everything in their capability to turn anyone with such a "list" into a "criminal" of some sort...or terrorist...or extremist...or uni-bomber...

I think the "random acts of cleansing" that John Ross and Matthew Bracken wrote about would be much more effective...

After all...
Loose lips sink ships...

Over at the Claire Files forum this type of posting would get the person's account canceled. They have had problems with people acting out their fantasies in such a way as they felt it could harm the whole forum and more importantly the "owners" of the forum brought up on conspiracy charges.

These are just some of the input I have heard or read that give me concerns. I have heard this person described on different occasions as "wild eyed", angry, menacing etc. The only firearm carrying person of the group I have ever heard mentioned of making people concerned.

I didn't want to bring it up because I sympathize with frustration and anger that can well up, but if we allow this kind of thing to grow it will be very destructive.

I could go on, but am not interested in debating the finer points of the issue. This is not the forum for loose cannon, testosterone fueled fantasizing.

"Shooting the Bastards" refers to those aggressing against you and, as such, would be defensive force...
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Quote: "However when over a period of time I read posts that refer to assasination and murder I will not let it continue unchallenged."
Response: Ok, so now we have established that you have "challenged" me...to what?...a duel?...some rooftop politics?...a bitch-slapping?...watermelon eating?...bobbing for apples?...what?

Roger, I've not changed much in 40-some years...you're wasting your time "challenging" me...
But if I witness the jack-boots raping you...well...have fun with that...ain't it cool man!

Hey...what goes on in claires files...stays in claires files...

Quote:  "These are just some of the input I have heard or read that give me concerns. I have heard this person described on different occasions as "wild eyed", angry, menacing etc. The only firearm carrying person of the group I have ever heard mentioned of making people concerned."
Response:  Am I supposed to be concerned about any of this?

Quote:  "I didn't want to bring it up because I sympathize with frustration and anger that can well up, but if we allow this kind of thing to grow it will be very destructive."
Response:  What's with this "we" stuff?...you hiding a gerbil somewhere?


Quote:  "This is not the forum for loose cannon, testosterone fueled fantasizing."
Response:  I wasn't aware that you owned this forum?

Quote:  "I could go on, but am not interested in debating the finer points of the issue."
Response:  Thank God, Praise The Lord, and Pass The Ammo!

Hey Joe, thanks for covering the "six"...I've got the "twelve"...lol.

[Tom Sawyer]

Rob,
I even tried to not refer to you by name in the post. I am referring to behaviors from you or anyone.

The we refers to any of the groups of people that your behavior might have a negative impact on.

The fact that you want to go your own way is very clear. Inspite of the effect your behavior might have on others around you.

Journalist, police, families that are considering moving to the state, and the people that have already invested time, money, risk and effort etc. are the audiences for you to act out your hopes that someone should shoot all the people in the town office.

For the rest of the "masterdebaters" that think that this is just an intellectual debate... the risk to benefit ratio goes past the tipping point for anyone who isn't a lone wolf.

[powerchuter]

Russell(and several others) said they liked knowing exactly where I was "coming from"...

I think even the aggressors monitoring these forums respect the person who is willing to be "up front" with exactly where they are "at" philosophically and that they are not only talking the talk...but walking the walk...

I have little doubt that they have been watching me for many years now...
I suppose if they felt they needed to get rid of me...I'd be gone by now...

As long as I get a few people "worked up" and "divided"...
I suppose they figure I'm better off left where I am at...

By the same token...
My welfare is watched by various known and unknown persons...in and outside of the several movements...
And if anything were to happen to me...well...random acts of cleansing might well occur...

Constitution Rangers are everywhere(even have some in "government"...just waiting...)!
Henry Bowman anyone?
V?

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

[Lloyd Danforth]

Anything happens to me and several people will get letters in their mail exposing the Tri-Lateral Commission and Kennedy's killers!

So There!

[error]

We already know who killed Kennedy!

[Lloyd Danforth]

Oh!.....that kennedy!

[Caleb]

They aren't people.  They give up their humanity when the initiate force against others.

Animals attack each other whenever they feel the desire to do so.  It's nature.  Human beings do not.  Human beings never initiate force against each other.  It is our only trait that distinguishes us from animals.

People become capable of monstrous acts against others when they dehumanize them.  How do you think the Holocaust happened?  People are capable of great monstrosities when they are able to classify other people as subhuman.  When I hear libertarians say things like this (you're not the first one whose ever said it, btw) it not only grates at me, I frankly find it terrifying.  You've got more sense than to say something like that, Joe.

The kitten-stompers' plight is worse than that of their victims?  I can think of a few people who might disagree.  Well, if they hadn't been burned to death a few years ago, that is...

Think outside the box, Joe.  There's more than one way to be harmed.  Physical harm is one aspect.  Our whole society has been indoctrinated in violence since infancy.  The emotional and spiritual harm done by this is staggering.  Those who are able to break free from the cycle of violence and to recognize the system for what it is have recovered from this violent indoctrination.  I think we should pity those who haven't yet broken free from it. Like I said, I'm more free than they are, even if they lock me in a prison. You can mock, if you want to, but this is not a new idea; Thoreau made the same comment while he was locked in prison:  He was free.  His jailers were slaves.

Uh, so you're saying that we should make threats and then carry them out, so that they are not idle?  I'm presuming that was a typo, knowing your thoughts on violence... (for the record, I haven't noted any threats)

In any case, I do not seek the respect of monsters.

No.  I'm saying we should not make threats.  My hope is that whatever threats made have been idle threats. Monsters don't respect people of strong morality.  Men do.  Gain their respect, and you will have found their humanity.

I respect Russell, but as Lloyd asks, what has resulted from his actions?

What has resulted from yours?  Russell has freed himself, and has pricked the consciences of an untold number of people who are caught in the system.  Each of them will respond in their own way.  Some will eventually quit their jobs and join us.  Some will modify and reduce their personal level of violence.  Some will try to avoid the issue and possibly become even worse.  You have no idea what is simmering in the hearts of those who meet and interact with Russell.  Nor do I.  Time will tell.

Someone who can do what the Feds do on a regular basis has no conscience.

I'll take that bet. The indoctrination is heavy, but they can only keep up their personal level of violence only by building up complex systems of rationale to excuse it.  All men have a conscience.

Or do you possibly think you can outshoot them?

Individually?  No.  As a people?  Yes.  Unquestionably yes.

You don't have the numbers, sir.  And if you ever did have the numbers, you wouldn't need the violence.  Violence isn't an option.  Threatening it only destroys everything we're trying to accomplish.  I went before the Lt. here in Keene and told him that he could expect that we would be completely nonviolent - that our pushing would all be done in a nonviolent way.  And I believe that will be true.  I, for one, don't think that anyone here has any intentions of going on a shooting spree. But since that is the case, why on earth would we want to "talk big" and try to make people think that we might do something that destructive?  Think, folks.

Caleb

[Lloyd Danforth]

I respect Russell, but as Lloyd asks, what has resulted from his actions?

What has resulted from yours?  Russell has freed himself, and has pricked the consciences of an untold number of people who are caught in the system.  Each of them will respond in their own way.  Some will eventually quit their jobs and join us.  Some will modify and reduce their personal level of violence.  Some will try to avoid the issue and possibly become even worse.  You have no idea what is simmering in the hearts of those who meet and interact with Russell.  Nor do I.  Time will tell.

So you have no evidence.  You just claim what Russell is doing works.

[error]

Depends on what you want to accomplish.

If you want to blow away some aggressors who encroach on your private property with the intention of doing you harm, then by all means do so, but be aware that most people are going to see the situation differently, and that will negatively affect your reputation. Most people haven't figured it out yet. They're still hopelessly dependent on the evil, and will fight to protect the evildoers. There aren't enough bullets on the planet to shoot every such person, and doing so would be counterproductive, to say the least, even if it were possible.

Russell's approach turns the tables, putting the evildoers in positions where the evil acts they commit are more obviously evil to that vast majority of people. This is the point of civil disobedience. The evildoers lose legitimacy in more people's hearts and minds every time they prosecute Russell or anyone else for something which has no business being prosecuted in the first place.

This sort of thing leads to interesting effects. They can be as small as a loosening of state cosmetology regulations or as large as an end to the War on Drugs. But in every case, the evildoers must give ground, even if it's only an inch, for they know in their own hearts that they stand on the moral low ground.

P.S. FREE RUSSELL KANNING!

[Caleb]

Another point here, (and I think tom sawyer hinted at it when he talked about "cost/benefit ratio") is that when we are verbally aggressive, we scare away people who are on our side and thinking about moving here.  Imagine a guy who has been considering moving to New Hampshire, he has a wife and two kids, and he is reading a forum where people are outspokenly saying "KILL EM ALL!"  Is he going to want to join us and help us out if he thinks that might be what we end up doing?  Does he want to join that:  To risk being called a "co-conspirator" and having his kids taken away from him?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Another point here, (and I think tom sawyer hinted at it when he talked about "cost/benefit ratio") is that when we are verbally aggressive, we scare away people who are on our side and thinking about moving here.  Imagine a guy who has been considering moving to New Hampshire, he has a wife and two kids, and he is reading a forum where people are outspokenly saying "KILL EM ALL!"  Is he going to want to join us and help us out if he thinks that might be what we end up doing?  Does he want to join that:  To risk being called a "co-conspirator" and having his kids taken away from him?

That's the argument the political types use when they complain about the CD people.  Ruining it for the rest of us.  Anyone paying attention to this forum would realize that for the most part we are a bunch of fun loving folks, interspersed with a few radicals like Russell and Rob, although they are 180 degrees apart.

[MaineShark]

People become capable of monstrous acts against others when they dehumanize them.

People aren?t capable of monstrosity.

How do you think the Holocaust happened?

Subhuman monsters tried to commit genocide.

People are capable of great monstrosities when they are able to classify other people as subhuman.  When I hear libertarians say things like this (you're not the first one whose ever said it, btw) it not only grates at me, I frankly find it terrifying.  You've got more sense than to say something like that, Joe.

I have more sense than to hide from the truth.  If the truth terrifies you, that?s your own deal.

The kitten-stompers' plight is worse than that of their victims?  I can think of a few people who might disagree.  Well, if they hadn't been burned to death a few years ago, that is...

Think outside the box, Joe.  There's more than one way to be harmed.  Physical harm is one aspect.  Our whole society has been indoctrinated in violence since infancy.  The emotional and spiritual harm done by this is staggering.  Those who are able to break free from the cycle of violence and to recognize the system for what it is have recovered from this violent indoctrination.

Anyone who had participated in such evil and ?broken free? and regained his humanity would promptly suicide.

I think we should pity those who haven't yet broken free from it. Like I said, I'm more free than they are, even if they lock me in a prison. You can mock, if you want to, but this is not a new idea; Thoreau made the same comment while he was locked in prison:  He was free.  His jailers were slaves.

I am free no matter where I am.  Any anarchist is.  That doesn?t mean I should pity monsters, just because they victimize themselves as well as others.

No.  I'm saying we should not make threats.  My hope is that whatever threats made have been idle threats. Monsters don't respect people of strong morality.  Men do.  Gain their respect, and you will have found their humanity.

So they will respect people who engage in lies?  How does that make any sense?

What has resulted from yours?  Russell has freed himself, and has pricked the consciences of an untold number of people who are caught in the system.  Each of them will respond in their own way.  Some will eventually quit their jobs and join us.  Some will modify and reduce their personal level of violence.  Some will try to avoid the issue and possibly become even worse.  You have no idea what is simmering in the hearts of those who meet and interact with Russell.  Nor do I.  Time will tell.

When you hear about the mass suicides of former government employees, let me know.

Someone who can do what the Feds do on a regular basis has no conscience.

I'll take that bet. The indoctrination is heavy, but they can only keep up their personal level of violence only by building up complex systems of rationale to excuse it.  All men have a conscience.

No one with a conscience can burn children to death.  A conscience would be the thing that prevents that.

You don't have the numbers, sir.  And if you ever did have the numbers, you wouldn't need the violence.  Violence isn't an option.

The colonials didn?t have the numbers, either.  They still won.

Threatening it only destroys everything we're trying to accomplish.

I don?t make threats.  Ever.

I went before the Lt. here in Keene and told him that he could expect that we would be completely nonviolent - that our pushing would all be done in a nonviolent way.  And I believe that will be true.  I, for one, don't think that anyone here has any intentions of going on a shooting spree.

Because Russell prefers it that way.  Not because it would be wrong.  My wife likes chocolate and raspberry, so I might get her a chocolate-raspberry cake for her birthday, rather than a lemon custard pie.  That doesn?t mean I think there?s anything wrong with lemon custard pies.

But since that is the case, why on earth would we want to "talk big" and try to make people think that we might do something that destructive?  Think, folks.

Because we might.  There are limits to how far people will be pushed, before they push back.

Another point here, (and I think tom sawyer hinted at it when he talked about "cost/benefit ratio") is that when we are verbally aggressive, we scare away people who are on our side and thinking about moving here.  Imagine a guy who has been considering moving to New Hampshire, he has a wife and two kids, and he is reading a forum where people are outspokenly saying "KILL EM ALL!"  Is he going to want to join us and help us out if he thinks that might be what we end up doing?  Does he want to join that:  To risk being called a "co-conspirator" and having his kids taken away from him?

If the Feds want to label someone that, they will.  Shoot first and plant whatever evidence you like after.  If you get too carried away to plant the right evidence, just give your jackboots medals anyway, and have a judge rule that ?they had it coming.?

That threat exists anywhere.  At least here, they have to worry that others may fight back.

If someone is planning to move here, and is scared away by the reality of what here is, well that?s his choice.  I?d rather he stay where he is.

Joe

[Caleb]

 

I give up, Joe.  Where are you getting this idea that people who are shown the light will start killing themselves?  You pulled it out of your ass, and now you've established it as fact in your fantasy land.

I continue to be amazed that you cannot see the parallels between your statement that people who aggress against other people (under pretext of law) are subhuman animals and the mentality of the NAZI's.  [HINT: both attitudes use a mistaken premise that people are not really people as a justification for slaughtering people.]

Your comparison of violence vs nonviolence as in any way similar to a choice between raspberry or custard pie really takes the cake. (No pun intended.)

Debate has a time and a place.  But this is a serious topic about the need for all of us to avoid giving even the appearance of violence so as to avoid undermining what we are doing here.