Bitter Clinger 101: A Call to Small Arms by Bill Buppert

Save pagePDF pageEmail pagePrint page

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

– Mohandas Gandhi

Publisher’s Note: Herschel over at the Captain’s Journal has been doing yeoman’s work in updating his readers on the Vegas massacre and the aftermath of calls for national disarmament. I recommend my readers go over and check out what he has posted. I’ve been following his blog for years.

In other news, Pinochet’s airborne solution to the communist and Marxian problem set is more and more appealing to me everyday. Communism happens to be an idea so virulent, it violates the Non-Aggression Principle by its very existence. Pinochet was an authoritarian bastard but he did provide a unique solution to the Marxist infection. Pinochet notions on weapons control was interesting. I don’t endorse Pinochet’s military rule but I am fascinated by his narrowly focused solution to the Marxist necro-monger virus.

Per the quote above, I am conflicted about Gandhi’s statement and no it has far more permutations than meet the eye but it will illustrate the main point of this fusillade.

In that passage, Gandhi avers to India’s Arms Act of 1878, which gave Europeans in India the right to carry arms but didn’t allow Indians from doing so, unless they were granted a license by the British colonial government. The full text of what he wrote is: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”

Of course, Mohandas was being coy. Our friend, John Ross, was more direct: “The downside to gun control is genocide.”

In the end, despite the serial bleating hearts mewling about the gun crisis, they are being even more disingenuous because weapons disarmament folk want one thing and only one thing. The dissolution of private firearms ownership; for the government is their godhead and they want it replete with every armament known to man to include the rather simple center fire arms that the police. They do want the great unwashed and un-uniformed or un-badged masses to possess such things. They know that liberty, like war, is all about angles. They know that one single well-placed round in the inflated head of an empty suit adorned in the robes of office can change the political dialog abruptly.

Coupled with Buppert’s Law of Military Topography and the violence brokers have themselves an existential pickle.

“Mountainous terrain held by riflemen who know what they are about cannot be militarily defeated”

So what to do:

Don’t plead with your political occupiers for a solution.

Do gun up, buy every gun and components you can lay your hands on. Go to the range.

Rinse. Repeat. Resist. -BB

So in the wake of the Vegas debacle, all the usual grave dancers are merrily trying to resurrect the joys of population disarmament.

No gun laws should be on the books and per my previous article, I don’t think the Second Amendment does a fucking thing to protect private gun ownership, which even the NRA is shy about. Gun control is part of the NRA’s DNA.

The wunderkind at the NRA, the nation’s largest disarmament lobby, have jumped the sharked, locked their jaws on the nether regions of the nearest politician and declared that ”bump stocks” should be regulated and banned. They needed a sign language translator to transmit the message since their mouths were busy at the time of the announcement. The NRA has been a key player in every article of Federal firearms legislation since 1934 to include the 1934 NFA, 1939 FFA, the refusal to submit an amicus curie brief in the 1939 US v. Miller decision, the 1968 GCA, the 1986 FOPA, NICS, on and on and on.

With friends like this…

My message is incredibly simply and I will aver to the estimable L. Neil Smith to wax poetically on the verities of my notion.

There isn’t a single law or sentence penned that restricts private weapons ownership that holds any moral water to me. No compromise, full stop. I remember being a FFL dealer in the 1990’s to get firearms at cost. I got so disgusted with the whole process and seeing how the ATF sausage got made, I surrendered the license after several years and stored all the 4473s they insisted I keep in a shredder. Never again.

I am encouraged by the resistance even commie states like NY and CT are experiencing with their pre-confiscation registries for cosmetically offensive weapons.

I advocate for not a single law in everything but on this notion, the laws are always repellant to liberty.

May I remind you of a force calculus when armed folk resist such tyranny?

During the post-WWII troubles in Northern Ireland under UK occupation, there were probably a peak of 500 active IRA (and assorted other variants like Provos, Real IRA, Continuity IRA, Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and such) paramilitaries that comprised trigger pullers and IED personnel. Of course, the auxiliary support to these paramilitaries numbered in the tens of thousands. The UK and satrap Irish forces numbered as much as 55k to rout these small resistance bands.

The history tells us that the UK did not succeed.

Vegas has some parallels possibly in the Omagh incident in Northern Ireland. I highly recommend reading some articles on the subject and viewing some of the new documentaries. GCHQ apparently had live recordings of the bombers on their way to the destination, of course.

There are hundreds of these stories in history where the force calculus (to twist an old Soviet paradigm) has these absurd ratios of in-country forces to resistance forces. It is certainly the case in Iraq and AFG.

Lettow-Vorbeck in WWI led a small German band of under 10k combatants in German East Africa with as many as 600k Allied soldiers and more than 120 general officers arrayed against him at one time or another during the course of the conflict. He saw the end of WWI as the only undefeated German general on Earth.

All of this simply illustrates that the magic number of resisters doesn’t have to be a large organization at all to be effective. Like all things, the US FEDGOD doesn’t extrapolate out the second and third order effects of their diktats and rules.

BTW, the plump commie blowhards over at National Review, a neocon rag, are musing on the joys of Hitler’s notions of disarmament. “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” Who knew the neocons would so quickly revert to origins and start this parade in concert with their Democratic siblings. The neoconservative movement can be characterized as a philosophy that embraces national socialism at home and international communism abroad. They have no more firm grasp on 4GW than they do on sound economics.

So take a few minutes to read Neil’s gem, he took the words rught my lips to Gods, but more elegantly.

H/T to Pat Hines for jogging my memory on Neil’s post.

I am going to post it in its entirety here for your reading pleasure. I’ve read all of Neil’s books and we have corresponded on occasion.

Why Did it Have to be … Guns? by L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machine-gun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like “Constitutionalist”—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man—and you’re not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn’t true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

lneil@lneilsmith.org

And a big fat fuck you to the NRA and every Fudd they coddle and every politician they suckle at.

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

Digg thisShare on YummlyShare on TumblrPrint this pageEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookFlattr the authorShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on VKBuffer this page

29 thoughts on “Bitter Clinger 101: A Call to Small Arms by Bill Buppert

  1. Pingback: Buppert: Bitter Clinger 101 – A Call To Small Arms | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  2. So Zerogov unironically posts about how a right wing dictator who unleashed the full power of the state and military on his political opponents is somehow good thing…in the same post that talks about the importance of the common man owning weapons to protect himself from thugs and from the state. Fucking gold.

    Whats more cringy than leftists who can’t meme? Old “anarchist” farts that discovered pepe memes 4 years too late and fit right in with edgy teens at /pol talking about helicopter rides by a military junta. Don’t throw away the credibility you have built over years just to fit in with the ride the kali yuga crowd that screeches about commies while jerking off to “muh right wing deathsquads” fantasies.

  3. There’s 3 things the dirty filthy stinking commies want.

    It is how they roll:

    Guns
    Belongings
    Lives

    What have those 3 things in common?
    They are all alike.
    They constitute property.
    Its the first thing: Property
    Do not be fooled, do not be swayed, do not be bushwhacked, do not be conned.
    Guns are property. This is the First thing.

    Guns are as much property as anything you own. If they try to take your gun, your property, they are doing so because your gun as property is all what stands in their way of all other property you own, (remember, they have taken almost everything, as a nation, the collective inherent wealth as a nation, our outward reflected legacy as a Christian Western people and all for which it stands).

    The gun is the most unique property there is. It is the only property with the inherent property of a piece of property which can be used to defend itself hence it defends all other property.
    Can you understand why guns are so unique in all property a man can posses?

    You win they loose by refusing by any means possible denying them any of your property.

    Without property you not only have no liberty you have no life.

    To take away your gun is the ultimate in larceny. It is also the ultimate in surrender. To surrender your gun is to surrender all that you own. Because now you have no property to defend your property. That sounds simple but it is a concept, a reality, which many can not comprehend in all its truth. If a plurality of us refuse to give up our guns even unto our death, we win because in refusing we will kill so many commies there is not enough left to take anymore guns.

    The gun, your gun, is your primal property. You must get that in your head and your heart. Nothing else matters. If you can not comprehend the primal nature of guns as property as the first thing you will loose. And you will follow the hundreds of millions who have perished into genocide by the hand of the greatest thieves of the human race.

    Do not give up your property, your gun.
    When you understand in your heart what this means all else follows.
    It is The Prime Directive.
    The prime directive of their tyranny is to take our guns.
    The prime directive of our liberty is to never give up our guns.

    If you can not grok this fundamental building block of the foundation of liberty you can not understand in full what liberty is, by that you can not fight tyranny with all the weapons you possess with all your being.
    This is critically important because defending ones Property: your guns, your possessions, your life, your land, your loved ones, your freedoms, your faith, your spirit, hence your motive power and yes your audacity of will and consent requires a bedrock comprehension that all these things are one & the same, they are part & parcel, they constitute a whole, the only Constitution which is valid and which is all that is required to exist free, that to be denied one is to essentially be denied all. That liberty is the sum of all its components.

    Don’t give up your fucking guns.
    I mean it.
    Do Not Give Up Your Fucking Guns.
    Refusing to give up your guns is the ultimate form of withdrawal of consent.
    It is the greatest weapon ever conceived.

    Be proud of your property.
    Cherish your property.
    Never betray your property.
    Love your property because nothing else is as stead fast and loyal, a projection of who you are and what you stand for and refuse to surrender, as your gun.

    Do not be fooled.
    This is all about guns.
    Who has guns.
    Who doesn’t have guns.
    Who rules the guns.
    Who is ruled by the guns.
    Everything else is total bullshit.

    People ask: what does the shit hit the fan look like?

    Answer: your looking at it. It is guns they are coming for now. The preliminary softening up of the people has ended. All that diversity convergence bullshit was dress rehearsal for taking our guns.

    It was to dis-arm us of our sense of who we are as Fee Men so to make it that much easier to disarm us of all of our property right down to the liberty in our hearts, ultimately our lives, it is the precept of all Communism/Marxian intent, to take everyones property. All that stands in the filthy stinking commies way is our guns in the hands of us who will never surrender either.

    Now do you understand the prime directive?

    • PS,
      Bill you go Man!
      Another Inspirational screed. Yes Sir.
      You’re always at your best when you compose an inspirational work which gets right to the heart of things.
      BFYTW

    • I get it. That’s why I own guns and know how to use them. Firearms are more than a tool, they are what makes someone a citizen and not a subject. They are a symbol of the freedom of the individual and the means by which that freedom is protected.

      That’s why we must always speak out against those who would take them from you. Totalitarian cunts are to be opposed wherever they are in the political spectrum.

      Pinochet was anti gun. His squads periodically conducted warrantless raids on citizens homes to look for guns. You are as stupid as the progressive collectivists calling for disarment when you fail to see the irony of zerogov making a post about the importance of guns for freedom, while at the same time regurgitating the “helicopter rides for leftists” meme that praises a DICTATOR WHO SENT MILITARY SQUADS TO SEIZE GUNS FROM THE POPULACE.

      It’s a sad day when people who were screeching about liberty and the constitution for the last 8 years begin to praise a shithead dictator. It is the same mentality that causes the leftists progressive herd to defend the abuses of liberty their “side” commits.

      • There isn’t going to be any helicopter rides. Not in the quantity necessary to effect the issue at ground level, ( no pun intendid ).

        The very nature of secessionists, abolitionists, freedomnistas, the dissident right, anti-federalists, even the scope of conservatism, in general as a whole is a fundamentally peaceful movement.
        That’s not to say it isn’t capable of violent redress. iI’s probably more a statement of the stage of resistance to tyranny.

        Maybe the Helicopter option is a stage of thinking as the movement evolves and matures, as it grows and more every day join the honorable resistance.

        Personally. I can attest the helicopter solution is hilarious, it’s is a message I personally advocate more as a warning to TPTB, a catch phrase, signaling what is possible for purposes of enlightenment of realities.

        Do I think the H-Op is a viable option?

        Fuck yeah I do.

        Would I participate?

        Depends.

        Do I have the balls to push a human out the door?

        But there for the Grace of God I go.

        It’s a slippery slope for sure.

        And is it an option which makes those doing it any better than those getting the ride?

        Is it a thing which lends legitimacy, or is it revenge, or is it a lets say a message worthy of the cause more than anything?

        That’s the question right there.

        I believe legitimacy is the moral high ground. It must be held in the highest regard, be the underlying guiding principle.

        Deviate from it at great peril to the whole idea of resistance to tyranny and creation of a state of liberty.

        I think most of us are cognitive at some level from intuitive to philosophical of the double edged nature of a form of state which takes that remedy as a slippery slope.

        Thing is, none of us have a practical answer for an alternative to the current State and its affairs as it stands. Mostly because there is so little trust in this society between people, and the effects of immigration invasion & cultural marxism, never mind the collusion of treason of corporate/political cronyism, all of which disrupts and abolishes trust between people in a civil society based on the values & principles of Western Christian precepts of rule of will of the governed as evolved in Colonial American Patriot Confederation pre USC ratification era.

        It seems more & more, there is an underlying/foundational generational aspect to the answers & remedies. And the learning curve at first will be brutal, bloody, inescapable. It may be beyond the ability for millions to change to, to accept, to understand even. The old horse to water teach a man to fish thing.

        How many are so injured, so brainwashed, nothing will effect?

        Then there’s apathy, ideology, cognitive and time sense factors. Belief systems. The only truly viable robust solution very well could be time & cultural.

        There’s the entire technological effect on society and how it has shaped our behaviors and thinking, which is a reality that determines an entirely new system of ideas & ideals will have to be worked out somehow in regards to abolition of the state.

        It seems the closest set of concepts and ideas of how this is possible is portrayed in William S. Lind’s gritty story of secession & the small nation state Victoria! : https://www.traditionalright.com/victoria/

        Secession from the state as we know it no matter how it comes about is going be a dragging kicking affair where millions will do anything to retain their corporate slave class status, welfare slavery, free shit feed trough, and entitlement, (and there’s the whole issue of organized crime, syndicates, fiefdom’s, gangs, tribes of pillagers and rapists etc which will swell or take root the moment the power of the Leviathan wanes or is abolished in some way, & there’s the entire separate possibility of a military coup or mercenary class that go total rouge). Never mind the day to day things like water, food & medicine production, industrial capability & output, healthcare, necessities all we take for granted, which in a secession or ending of how we now know things now, are unavoidable imperatives.

        In a practical sense, will there be fuel and spare parts, facilities and skilled people to even keep operational helicopters flying?

        Regardless, I’m going to contend the helicopter option has become a part of the lexicon and symbolic and is more euphemism for defiance & revolt against the State and it’s actors than an actual remedy. An expression more in tune with the frustrations, concerns, and online culture of liberty, the awakening of nationalism, and the resistance.

        Sure it would probably be very effective to round up the bad actors & throw them from helicopters, so is pitchforks, tar & feathers, lampposts and 13 knot neckties. Its more an expressive analog and natural tendency to send a message with a beast such as the Federal monstrosity we are saddled with.

        As a what if, I think the helicopter remedy is more than suitable for those behind the scenes, the leaders, movers and shakers of destruction of our liberty. A rather common sense of things across the board in the “freedom movement”.

        The sycophants and useful dupes, trouble makers, crime, are issues for the local level to iron out naturally.

        Whatever the means peaceful or violent the head must be cut off the Marxian beast, because no matter the ground reality there is the vestige thinking, hope and desire it is totally vanquished our it grows back and your in the same pickle another 200 years or sooner.
        What better expression of battle for hearts & minds is there than throwing commies and other tyrants out of helicopters? Seriously. Who among the rational really desires a violent remedy when peaceful redress is possible? Who among the grass roots uprising for freedom from the Leviathan will in actuality take the violent option?

        They are undoubtedly questions in the back of all minds or we ain’t human’s.

        I’m saying long as Marxian and the American class culture of political/corporate corruption is capable of producing generational red diaper babies and inherited oligarchy respectfully, short of total secession of territory capable of fighting & sustaining secession from the beast of federalists, we ain’t going anywhere but towards totalitarianism and or total breakdown of society as we know it, that we very could well end up hitting rock bottom, where everything “burns to the ground”, or a civil war between the growing “dissident” rightists movement and the growing blackblock underground violent arm of the permanent state collection of regimes. And there is the whole aspect of state actors who since at least Lincoln & his Marxists have employed false flag & crisis as a means tactics and its strategy as social engineering, using totalitarian means to create a state of, well, totalitarianism.

        It’s always been the movers and shakers who must be removed from the equation if any form of abolition of the leviathan state, tyranny etc is to plant roots again and prosper.

        Ever wonder, that it all couldn’t happen another way than how it’s going down?

        That we have to go through the meat grinder, that’s its in human nature we have to learn the hard way, a species thing?

        That this is a legacy thing we are fighting for. That the founders are far more wise than we understand today?

        That their prescient thinking was they didn’t pass down a set of ideas so much as they passed down a legacy, a legacy we can only truly appreciate and make robust to survive the effects of time through tribulation, through the great test of men in total war of resistance to tyranny.
        That maybe subconsciously the H-Op is a Freudian expression of the inevitability of the struggle of tyranny vs Liberty?

  4. Pingback: NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS – Dirt People

  5. Anon, are you aware that a “citizen” is someone who BELONGS to the state – belonging to whatever state he or she is claiming to be a citizen.

    I am not a “citizen” of anywhere or anything. I am a sovereign individual, a self owner. I owe allegiance to nothing and loyalty to nobody unless I freely choose it for my own reasons.

    I am also fully armed and ready to defend myself and those with whom I voluntarily associate.

    • I get your point and agree with it, you still haven’t addressed my main point: the irony of zerogov posting a picture of Pinochet and playing into the meme of “pinochet did nothing wrong” when he was a dictator who sent armed squads to go into people’s houses and forcibly take away their arms and kidnap them because they posed a threat to the state. We all hate communists. But We must be careful not to support collectivist tyrants because they promise to get rid of communists. This is a broader trend in the “pro liberty” blogosphere – there are blogs linked to by Western Rifle Shooters full of comments of people saying “we need a pinochet” and “right wing death squads are cool”.

      @moises aguirre

      The Sandinistas were fighting a brutal dictator, but they were communists and imposed a totalitarian government of their own (this is why Comandante Zero turned against them and became a Contra). Their leadership cadre had largely studied in the USSR and were trained by soviets, cubans, and other radical revolutionary groups. One of the first things they did when they took power was go house to house taking away all the privately owned firearms – this was after they had broadcasted popular folk songs in Radio Sandino praising firearms and teaching listeners how to use them, clean them, and how to make explosives. Pretty ironic right?

      When you talk about Reagan and the arms deals, dont forget to mention a large part of the armed opposition against the Sandinistas came from Miskito indigenous populations in the country side and mountains who were angry at the urban revolutionaries coming into their land, confiscating their weapons, and forcing them into collectivist farms “for the benefit of the revolution”.

      Fuck all statists. If you support pinochet and his ilk you are as much of an enemy to freedom as those who support communism.

      • You’re calling it irony and praise, but from everything Bill seems to write, I read ignore as sadistic humor. Not supporting a dictator’s actions. Calm the fuck down.

      • Fuck all statists. If you support pinochet and his ilk you are as much of an enemy to freedom as those who support communism.

        We agree and no, I don’t support Pinochet but I do support a vigorous self-defense against all threats.

        Just so you know, only ancaps can do memes and irony extraordinarily well, there is a reason the collectivists fail at memes.

    • I haven’t read many of your comments, either on David’s, Mike’s or anybody else’s sites, but this is the first time I’ve seen one of “us” who knows this. It usually takes a YouTube video about drivers licensing or the US being a corporation, etc., to bring this out. Bless you for your awareness, and keep spreading this truth. People don’t seem to be able to read plain English (and statutory definitions of the term “person”) anymore, much less comprehend the legal meanings.
      -MM

  6. America right now is a deeply divided nation and a lot of people are blaming this on people like Kapernick for encouraging division with his antics but the reality of this division is that it is a product of the governments efforts to indoctrinate the American people with neoliberal/neocon ideology. You see, it became pretty clear to me pretty fast reading this that your hatred of leftist is based, as all hatred is, on ignorance and misunderstanding. The second you started talking about the IRA’s armed struggle I realized you didn’t know that in the IRA charter it states that the goal of IRA is to establish a “independent, united socialist Ireland”.

    Socialists are not your enemy. We have a lot of ideas that we agree with. We have a lot of disagreements. But we can work together against our common enemy, the neoliberal/neo conservative oligarchy that oppressed us and divides us. BTW I do believe those are Sandinistas in your pictures. Ronald Reagan tried to overthrow that government by having the CIA sell black people crack cocaine and using the profits buy arms from Iran to give them. They were socialists.

    • Moises,

      Of course, they were socialists. They were socialists fighting each other in the Irish civil war that ensured after 1922. Socialism and its near kissing cousin, communism are built on violence like all government but at least they are more forward about the wood shampoos, caging and killing they engage in. Socialism is more discreet about hiding the gun than brandishing it from Day One like their despicable commie brethren.

      It just so happens that the Irish experience for the past 850 years is the largest and deepest English language primary and secondary source documentation for a guerrilla conflict against a numerically and technological enemy.

      Socialism is a necro-monger cult for government supremacist economically illiterate virtue signalers who form a death cult around any nation they park their police state death star over.

      Thanks for the heads up per the commie Stalinista jungle-women, picture removed and replaced with Kurdish fighters.

      • “Socialism is more discreet about hiding the gun than brandishing it from Day One like their despicable commie brethren.”

        I don’t think there’s such a big difference between the two. Using a hidden gun isn’t a ton different than using a visible one, at least not to the guy getting shot. But then ever since I got my first rifle, I never quite understood what the “issue” was in the first place. It always struck me that guns were for when persuasion and consent don’t do the trick. Maybe I’m dense on the point, but I don’t see any use in pretending otherwise.

        The real problem here, at least to me, is that you seem to be presenting socialism versus communism as the two sides of the statist coin. I find that extraordinarily misleading, since socialism/communism versus fascism–or even left versus right–are the two same sides of that particular coin.

        It’s “zerogov,” not “propergov” or “bettergov.” For good reason I’d say…there can be no proper gov of ANY nonconsensual sort. Period. This is so easily demonstrable in fact, that it’s hardly worth the time. That’s not to say that progress doesn’t happen in steps, but it is to say that those steps had better be in the right direction or else one goes nowhere.

  7. Pingback: Leftists understand | Lunacy is contagious

  8. Moises Aguirre, socialism – along with every single other kind of political organization, is built on and requires theft, initiation of force and fraud to operate.

    As such, there will NEVER be any agreement between us because I reject totally any kind of theft, fraud or initiation of force.

    I have, however, absolutely no problem using any violence necessary to defend myself from those…

    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except mala en se. I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

    • That any form of govt has taken every opportunity of civil service to its extreme intent..i.e.; Garbage collection now has fines, regulations, content restrictions, schedules and corruption.. is proof that govt cannot be trusted with even the most basic and unimportant authority because it will be abused, usurped and become a cancer of its own.

      At least some people get the real concept of Liberty and Sovereignty.

      Thanks

  9. “I am opposed to the government death penalty; I am also pro-life which makes me blessedly consistent. I don’t trust the government to be able to have the responsibility to mete out the severest penalty and to do it either professionally or with no ill intent.” Bill Buppert

  10. I do not think that Nortern Ireland is a valid example.

    The British state had no long term interest in preventing a United Ireland.

    The main role was to maintain some semblance of order and not to win a war.

    The main bugbear were the NI Unionists who were very pro-British and had held onto past employment/housing privileges.

    Most UK citizens were unconcerned or slightly ant-army – I got abused a few times when in uniform by civilians..That said there were sporadic outbreaks of anti-Irish activity.

    There were incidents of torture plus Bloody Sunday – They could have been far worse.

    The Troubles fizzled out mainly due to around %50 of PIRA being infiltrated by the security forces.

    And a reasonably workable peace deal being worked out.

    • “The main bugbear were the NI Unionists who were very pro-British and had held onto past employment/housing privileges.”

      Sounds right. Imagine the trouble we’re gonna face in that regard. Personally I’d suggest imagining it now, not later.

      • As one who experienced republican paramilitary violence firsthand in Ulster, I can assure you that what broke the back of the Provisionals and their disparate affiliated criminal gangs was the brutal (red) hand of retaliatory Loyalist violence. Unionist violence in NI was nearly always reactionary violence, delivered twofold. If they killed one RUC (police) or Loyalist shopkeeper, three more Fenian bodies were returned in repriasal. Without a doubt, what drove the Provos to the bargaining table was the continued pleading of their council estate hangers-on to do whaatever it took to stop the tit-for-tat violence.
        Make no mistakes about it, Irish Republicans have long been simpatico with the PLO and the ANC: communist groups through and through. As was once explained to me by a INLA–Irish National Liberation Army– loser, the next step after throwing out the “Brits” was to head to Dublin and hang all the traitors who resisted the nationalization of all private property on the island of Ireland. The lessons of NI are quite applicable to the current American situation: bring unbearable violence to bear on your enemies and they will stop whatever it is they are doing. No surrender!

  11. Prior to 1967, I paid little attention to 2A issues. No real need to, given the nature of the country at that time.

    Since the GCA 1968 abomination, I’ve used the 2A as a litmus test in judgement of any candidate or political appointee–and of corporate policies as well.

    Saves time and psychic energy in election years, for sure.

  12. You seem not to read much beyond your own arguments. I think I made it very clear that I don’t support or agree with any statists, of any stripe, anywhere. And I don’t pretend to speak for Bill.

  13. Pingback: Linkapoloosa Fest: A Two Week Cross Section As The Roll On Order Consequences of Trying To Destroy The West Accelerate – Dirt People

Let us know what you think...