Abbey’s Road: Monkey-wrenching the State [Revisited] by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: The cavalcade of calamities that is the Democrat Party was on full display this week with the acquittal of the Mango Emperor on the trumped-up charges alleged by the psychopaths in the CPUSA.

The Iowa debacle was a shot in the arm for those of us convinced a political party couldn’t run a lemonade stand without fucking it up. Ace of Spades has the best coverage out there right now.

Pay attention to the humans behind the curtain behind ACRONYM [cute] and Shadow Inc who developed the “app”. The same clown posse that worked for Pantsuit Negan in 2016.

The DNC is terrified of Bernie not because they disagree but he breaks the code of silence on their ultimate intent and therefore gums up the works of completing the long march through the institutions to create the utopia of Amerizuela. Therefore they are backing the dark horse of cute little Mayor Pete whose filial lineage is most interesting. Like Comrade Obama, he was raised and steeped in communist ideology since he was a sprout.

Baby Pete B grew up in a Marxist family. He is a genuine red diaper doper baby. His father, Joseph, was a Marxist all his life, and the President and one of the Founders of the International Gramsci Society. He even helped translate some of Gramsci’s books into English.

“Equity, environmental consciousness, and racial justice are surely some of the ingredients of a healthy Marxism. Indeed, Marxism’s greatest appeal — undiminished by the collapse of Communist edifices — is the imbalances produced by other sociopolitical governing structures,” Buttigieg wrote.

Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College and an expert in communism and progressivism, said Buttigieg was among a group of leftist professors who focused on injecting Marxism into the wider culture.

“They’re part of a wider international community of Marxist theorists and academicians with a particular devotion to the writings of the late Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, who died over 80 years ago. Gramsci was all about applying Marxist theory to culture and cultural institutions — what is often referred to as a ‘long march through the institutions,’ such as film, media, and especially education,” Kengor told the Washington Examiner.”

Read the whole thing.

Prioritize your spending to make all the necessary purchases for the Big Igloo.

Ed Abbey would be flying his freak flag even higher now. [H/T to Freerifleman]

You have 349 shopping days until the present or next muppet shambles into the Awful Office. -BB

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy… If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government—and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”

“Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward.”

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

“Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.”

-Edward Abbey

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.  In the smaller sense, the evidence is massive of the queue of innocents who have been shot, hanged and poisoned for crimes they did not commit.  In the larger sense, government puts us all on death row and it is just a matter of time before the cops kill you in your home or vehicle or we suffer a massive die-off in America from an EMP burst that takes us from zero to 1850 in one second.

I use this preamble to frame my severe skepticism of the state doing the right thing…ever.

I am not opposed to the death penalty in my house if an intruder comes in to do harm to me or mine.  I am a Flinter in temperament and predisposition.  Most of the laws on the books are noxious, useless and liberty-draining in their essence.  Malum prohibitum is the state saying don’t do that because I told you not to.  A monstrous fallacy whose logic only serves to reduce subject populations to assessed rentals on their freedom that can be wrested away at the drop of the constabulary’s hat.  I daresay that one could throw every statute book into the bonfires across the nation when Americans finally wake up and throw off their shackles of serfdom from the local to the national level and folks would not find themselves in danger but would stumble into prosperity.

Will commerce and everyday living really come to a screeching halt because the coproaches don’t show up to work or the sloth-like city landscaping crews refuse to shamble from their abodes to dawdle at make-work throughout the burgs of America?  All of a sudden, the economic illiterates occupying the municipalities across the nation go on strike for higher wages and more vacation time for weeks, nay months; will the country stagnate and fold onto itself?

Things would be difficult for about 24 hours and then voluntarism, persuasion and cooperation would emerge as the factors that make life worth living.  No utopia this and there would be scores settled and inevitable failures but only the individuals would be responsible and not the nameless strangers who lord over every facet of our lives like pawns on a macabre chess board.

Innovation has never once sprung from the mind of a mob. Ever.

The heavy hand of the state and its shambling yoke-tenders would be out of work and the country would revitalize itself.  Tens of thousands of Americans would wake up the next morning and look to the east and exclaim:  “You can go away now; we have awakened from our prison slumber.” Ed Abbey made me say this.

I found Edward Abbey’s 1959 thesis on “ANARCHISM AND THE MORALITY OF VIOLENCE” over the weekend while reading a small tome entitled “Epitaph for a Desert Anarchist” by James Bishop, Jr.  I have been an Abbey reader most of my adult life and found his books amusing and penetrating.  He held a lifelong distrust of all authority, especially the state and the thesis provides an insight into the flame that burned in him at a rather tender age.

What one learns about personal political evolution is that a road traveled to the right is far more traveled than the opposite direction.  It is rare indeed for folks to age and yearn for more government instead of less.  I am a skeptic of the Left-Right paradigm but use it to simply illustrate the purpose.  It is far more descriptive to chart one’s philosophical predisposition on a quadrant chart at whose corners are interventionist, collectivist, non-interventionist and individualist on whose map I am located within the nexus of the last two.  Abbey was a strange brew at times but consistency escapes most of us for everything we believe.

He was a desert dweller who found the vast emptiness, solitude and sheer ferocity of nature to be a welcome refrain from dealing with the hubbub of civilization and the attendant disease of intrusive government.  His books are lyrical, intense and peppered with brilliance.

Kirk Douglas starred in a screen treatment of Abbey’s novel, “The Brave Cowboy” in the early 1960s called “Lonely Are the Brave”.  It is a powerful and stark film treatment of a  cowboy (the unacknowledged unconscious anarchist in American history)  marooned in a 20th century which continues to ”fence me in”.  Douglas looked at it as one of his favorite roles in his film career.

Abbey was fond of saying that “sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul”.  He discovered anarchism at a tender age and sought to find the evolutionary blueprint for it in the earlier writings of Greek philosophers and everyone in between which his thesis is peopled with and he asks a central question:  will violence lead the people from their subject braces and chains into freedom?  He thought the answer was no but he was no pacifist, he was a staunch supporter of gun rights and considered himself something of the cactus in which one could only get injured if you screwed with something or somebody.  If you read “The Monkey Wrench Gang” and later “Hayduke Lives”, his growing frustration got the best of him as some of his characters started to break the First Rule in the Code:  Harm No One.

He captured the paradox that causes ethical anarchists the world over no end of consternation.  If one wishes to build a society based on cooperation and non-violence, how do you get there when the obstacles are erected by the most violent and sociopathic structures that man has created – government?  Thoreau and Gandhi broke the code but one certainly can’t patent the methodology nor hail its success everywhere.

A slight departure:  Please don’t mistake this sentiment to be in concert with the hippy-drippy allegedly antiwar Left of fable and fairy tale.  They are the creatures who authored the political and philosophical underpinnings of ALL the great abattoirs of history:  their sick and sweaty fever-dream of ultimate domination to create their beloved Homo Sovieticus.

Is it not interesting that the antiwar movement of late has all but dried up with the installation of Obama’s Marxoid-inspired kakistocracy and yet the war on the world continues apace?  The trail of tears and path of destruction has a sorrowful record burned into the annals of Western and Eastern recorded history.  Written in blood and stacked on hundreds of millions of corpses, the state is the Goliath that straddles across the corpus of man.  Abbey saw this.

Abbey also realized that the pacifist is road-kill.  He realized that the porcupine is the premier fauna of liberty.

So what do we do?  Gold, guns and groceries because that is a storm on the horizon, The Amphibian has given you a golden opportunity to right your ship of self-sufficiency;  everything you know and hold dear will be wrested from you in the next few years and it is up to you to decide what you want to replace it with.

More of the same or a brave new individual world?

You can easily loose your fetters and simply hand them to your children, or better yet, teach them how to wear them with resignation and helplessness.  Or even better yet, you can fight and teach them to fight for self-ownership, autonomy and a well-oiled set of rules that seek to harm no one but bring hell on Earth to those who seek to enslave you…again.

Resist. Rinse. Repeat.

“Grown men do not need leaders.”

– Edward Abbey

7 thoughts on “Abbey’s Road: Monkey-wrenching the State [Revisited] by Bill Buppert”

  1. Pingback: Abbey’s Road [Revisited]: Monkey-wrenching the State by Bill Buppert — ZeroGov | Abbey’s Road [Revisited]: Monkey-wrenching the State by Bill Buppert | The zombie apocalypse survival homestead

  2. Wow, this one resinates with me. I’ve been an ” Abbey” fan from my early teens, to present. A lot to admire about Abbey’s writings., his application, of his writings, I’m impressed.
    Bill, you’re a curious mix of many things magical. I look forward to receiving your musings observations, and Insight into how you run/manage your life. Perhaps better stated, how you live your life, your guiding principles.

    As I read your stuff, listening to Santana, Filmore West ” Live” 1969, the heavy Latin conga beat and your story compliment one another well.

    Outstanding essay Bill, I pretty much feel the same, with minor differences.

    But then wasn’t it you who told me a few years back that, If we all agreed on everything ZeroGov, wouldn’t be needed. Another truth. Keep up the good work.

    Dirk AKA, Dirt.

  3. Mr. Abbey may have channeled Orwell and improved the core thought: “The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle, hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

    Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then….

  4. “The rifle is the weapon of democracy…”, and the comment, “That rifle, hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy.”…

    i am no edward abbey but if i were to be able to talk to him today i would ask him to reconsider the use of the word “democracy” in his description of the rifle. i only parrot much more intelligent individuals who denounced it as always devolving into a dictatorship in that it does not take into consideration the rights of the minority [ask the person on the end of the mob’s rope]. i would ask edward if he wouldn’t consider another choice of word such as “liberty”..? the rifle is the weapon of liberty. [anything but “democracy”!]

  5. “Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward.”

    Been a reader of the blog for a few years now. Never commented as I felt a little intellectually inadequate to hang with the big dogs. I’ll give it a shot today. The above quote pushed a button so I thought I would try and elaborate on it. As a Christian I thought maybe I could paint a picture of the character of God that might cast a different light on the subject. Often God is portrayed as a tyrant that is a hair trigger away from judging and condemning any and all that stray from the correct path. Group think must be adhered too and doubts and questions are not tolerated. The reality is actually 180 degrees opposite. The ultimate ethic that God holds close to His heart is love. Love demands that I can choose to accept or reject you. God is the ultimate gentleman. He will never violate our will. He is always true to His character. He never wavers. He never lies. We are free to accept or reject Him. No question, doubt, skepticism or argument is too big for Him to handle. We also must accept the reality that we are not exempt from the consequences of our choices. All choice has consequence. The choice of accepting or rejecting God is no different. I’ll leave it there and see and see where things go. Just looking for honest and stimulating conversation.

    1. We also must accept the reality that we are not exempt from the consequences of our choices. All choice has consequence. The choice of accepting or rejecting God is no different.

      And I think these are Abbey’s words you quote initially.

      True and no disagreement from me; I am of a position that I don’t reject spirituality. I think the trouble brews when two or more people start meeting in a building for a common supernatural belief whether that is godheads in this mortal coil or without. I repeat, I am not an atheist who may be among the most irritating people on Earth.

  6. A comment was made about “principles” – what an opportunity to slip a foot in the door and put out some information that I hope will make for a better, more peaceful world… Dirk, in mentioning his appreciation for what bill does said, in part,

    “Perhaps better stated, how you live your life, your guiding principles.”

    If Bill has specifically touched on his “principle[s]”, singly or en masse?, then I missed that edition of ZeroGov – although I have a suspicion that he and I would be close to ‘twins’ in that department. Allow me to expose mine to the readers in the hope that some of you might consider adopting some or all of them – my gift to you should you choose to accept them..?

    I came upon them in my search for a way to live harmoniously without having to refer to a religion or religious ‘ideal’ or consequence. I wanted the principles to be put into strictly secular terms for people who don’t hold to the “creator” theory – how can I, without being “religious”, still be moral/ethical [and how can those who are ‘religious’ also see the ‘benefit’].

    One has to ask one’s self: how does one know that, what they have taken-on as a ‘principle’, doesn’t hide some ominous or sinister side to it? How can one tell if the principles voluntarily chosen are “pure”; to what test can they be put?

    This is my ‘test’… What is the most cherished, trustworthy, highest attainable goal that one person can strive for in dealing with others? The one – and only – thing I have come up with is that one live one’s life such that no harm is purposely [as in “initiated”] done to another person [what is claimed to be the Hippocratic Oath of ‘do no harm’ comes to mind].

    My secular definition of morality/ethics consists of applying three [3] principles that ‘come from’…

    ▪ the libertarian “Non-Aggression Principle; and,

    ▪ the Declaration of Independence’s…

    “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…”

    [For those reading this who believe in the Christian religion: Paul says,
    Jesus, on the other hand, insists… human beings are the image of God.]

    …and per the universal:

    ▪ ‘treating all individuals the same’.

    If we are all “equal” then ‘I only own myself; I [cross out ‘do not’ and put in] MAY NOT own anybody else’.

    One [cross out ‘cannot’ and put in] MAY NOT, use force to steal property [money and labor and skills are property] from an “equal”.

    Then, because I only own myself, this is the reason I can willingly, and cheerfully, adopt – and use – the following principles:

    ▪ It is immoral/unethical to initiate force or fraud on a person who is not harming others

    – the rule of the Non-Aggression Principle
    [‘Self-defensive force’ is moral/ethical only when someone is threatening or aggressing against you or an innocent person]

    ▪ It is immoral/unethical to do something to a person [who isn’t harming others] that I would not want done to me

    – the Golden Rule.

    ▪ Everyone is a special and unique, sovereign, autonomous, individual but… no one is more special or more unique than anyone else; it is immoral/unethical to treat any innocent person differently than another in a similar situation

    – the Rule of Law.

    Is there any instance that can be thought about where these principles could purposely do harm to another person?

    If there is no instance where these principles, as written – and practiced – could purposely injure an innocent human being then, the principles must be a right path to follow – for everyone. [If there is even one instance where they would be immoral/unethical then that would negate the preceding sentence of this paragraph.]

    Principles cannot be compromised – only abandoned!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top